Search Results

If The Iliad was written down in the late eighth or early seventh century BCE, then why was it that the first translation into English by a woman only appeared in 2015, by classicist Caroline Alexander? The ostensible absence of women is dispiriting to say the least, but women have in fact been working in translation for much longer than we think. Beginning with Anne Le Fèvre Dacier, a late 17th and early 18th century French classicist, up to Emily Wilson’s acclaimed The Odyssey in 2018 and The Iliad in 2023, there is a visible thread connecting these women as translators of much lauded texts. Whereas the debate around female translators was much more potent at the time of Dacier, when published women writers were rare and often only elite women ‘of letters’, modern day feminist offerings of The Odyssey and The Iliad breathe new life into the source material and aim for a broader readership. The place of women translators was up for interrogation in the 18th century, whereas now attention is given to making the classics more relevant to contemporary readers, in Wilson's case by showing how The Odyssey provides a richly intersectional view of life during the Trojan War (12th or 13th century BCE). The Iliad and The Odyssey and Women To begin with, The Iliad and The Odyssey are stalwarts of the Western literary canon. The great tales of war and ancient civilisation are reflected in the epic scale of The Iliad, spanning the origins and course of the Trojan War, and The Odyssey, the twenty-year journey home from the war following a central hero, Odysseus. They are both epic poems, written in dactylic hexameter, in Greek, and believed to be written by ‘Homer’, who may have been one or several writers (this debate is known as the Homeric question). Narratively, questions around humanity are central to the conflicts of the poems, and the fervent belief in fate, gods, and mythical creatures ensures the legacy of the poems as fantastical and centred around journeys and family relationships. These epic poems primarily concern men, their acts of violence and the societies they sought to defend, but the female characters in these poems are not one-dimensional. Helen of Troy, Penelope, Circe and Nausicaa for example are all women with certain status, demonised or loved, who occupy a complex role as they are not simply wives or daughters. Importantly, the work of modern female classicists like Mary Beard, Edith Hall and Nathalie Haynes has aimed to revise a culturally dominant view of Ancient Greece as a solely masculine world, bringing new life to the words of these epics. Therefore, the issue of women and Homer’s poems goes beyond the relatively secondary role they occupy in both epics, since translations by women are part of the broad reassessment of classical studies. And it emerges that an earlier strand in our story of translating Homer takes us back to the 1670s. Anne Le Fèvre Dacier: The first female translator of Homer Anne Le Fèvre Dacier, born c. 1651 in Northern France, is our first heroine, who appeared on the translation scene uninvited and ambitious. Her published defences of her Neoclassical style and choices as a writer reflect the uneasy place she held as an educated and privileged person who was nevertheless going against the norm by entering the male-dominated domain of translation. Taught Greek and Latin by her father, a professor of classics, her education was unusual for this time (Lauren Hepburn). She was invited to contribute to the special editions of Greek and Roman texts prepared for the Dauphin, The Delphin Classics, in the 1670s (Hepburn). Access to the highest ranks of French society gave Dacier certain freedoms and privileges as an academic, as she was highly educated in a time where classical education was withheld from most women. The publication of The Iliad in 1699 made Dacier the first woman to translate Homer’s poem into French, followed by The Odyssey (1708). Alexander Pope, a much better-known writer today, was her contemporary, and Dacier found much to criticise in his translation of The Iliad. He had a respected place in the literary sphere, and so Dacier’s decision to critique him indicated her gutsy aim. Taylor outlines her unique position, as a purveyor of the Ancient school of Classicism, therefore retaining Homer’s style. According to French and Comparative Literature Professor Helena Taylor, ‘Her status as savante, often a contested identity, was accepted’, so the choice of Dacier to publicly critique her male contemporaries underlines her self motivation to carve out a place in the ‘querelle d’Homèr, an academic debate that was largely comprised of male writers (22). She was keen to quarrel and engage in lively debate which was traditionally masculine, but many critics have rather narrowly viewed her as misguided ‘in her old age’ and unfeminine (24). Thus she entered into the public debate over women’s status, known as the ‘querelles des femmes’, by publishing Une Défense d’Homère (A Defence of Homer) (1715) and Réflexions sur la Préface de Pope (Reflections on the Preface of Pope, 1719). Erika Harlitz-Kern notes that, ‘In her line-by-line commentary to The Odyssey, Dacier mocks her male colleagues for using bombastic language in their translations in contrast to Homer's straightforward and humble poetry’. Her objective as a translator was to remain faithful to Homer’s style and language, and Dacier outlined how the beauty of his poem lay ‘dans la clarté & dans la noblesse; elle est claire par les mots propres, & noble par les mots empruntés’ (in its clarity and nobility; it is clear through its own words, and noble through the words that are borrowed) (Dacier 7). In her prefaces Dacier defended the classical style of Homer and argued its superiority to Pope’s modern version; Her own position as a vessel for translation was to adopt a humble position. She wrote that ‘je me sens obligée de le defendre encore contre les reproches d’un homme plus eclairé’(I feel obliged to once more defend my translation against the criticisms of a brighter man) (35). She had to feign humility by claiming her male peers are ‘brighter’, and Marie-Pascale Pieretti underlined that she had to appear self-deprecating due to the contested place of women in the translation sphere: ‘Claiming to restore the integrity of Homer for her contemporaries, Anne Dacier, for example, presents her audacious project to translate the Iliad as writing for her own amusement’ (475-6). Even though Dacier was a ‘savante’, her expertise was still up for debate due to the quarrels surrounding women writers. Pope was reduced to humility in his response to Dacier, saying that ‘ my whole desire is but to pre- serve the humble character of a faithful Translator, and a quiet subject’ (Weinbrot 22). His rhetoric can only portray Dacier in fiery opposition to himself, a law-abiding and humble servant, as Dacier’s outspokenness would frustratingly be held against her as a female translator. Despite staunch criticism, she firmly established herself as a knowledgeable classicist, and brought Homer’s epics to a wider and primarily female readership. She certainly had supporters, and Mary Astell’s ‘A Serious Proposal to the Ladies’ in 1694 praised her intelligence, calling upon her readership to ‘Remember, I pray you… the more modern Dacier!’ (Astell). Dacier then was considered a symbol of aspiration for women to be educated, even ‘modern’, an indicator of her role in the constant fight for women’s voices to be heard in education. Pieretti added that ‘Dacier had also presented these translations as a way to remedy female readers' lack of access to Greek antiquity’ (477). Dacier’s intellect was iconised in the cartoon Wonder Woman, where she was sketched out as a feminist hero and brought to a new generation of readers in 1951. The artists of Wonder Woman dramatised Dacier’s education as a young girl, with her father remarking ‘a girl with the mind of a brilliant man’, and this satirical representation of an extraordinary talent emphasises how she defied stereotypes of ‘feminine’ knowledge (DC Comics). Moving to the present day, translation studies continue the project of widening the field of translated texts; in particular, the #womenintranslation project established in 2013 encourages publication and recognition for women writers and translators from around the world. Elsewhere, Emily Wilson, the British-American translator widely known for her fast-paced, inventive translations of Homer since she rose to popular attention with her new translation of The Odyssey in 2017, has commented on the gender bias that is pervasive in the world of classical studies: ‘The legacy of male domination is still with us – inside the discipline of classics itself and in how non-specialist general readers gain access’ as ‘the works of dead, white elite men have largely been translated by living, white elite men’ (Wilson). She calls up people to reclaim these texts, as they should be accessible to all. The Iliad and its translators The story of The Iliad attracted women translators who sought to demonstrate the accessibility of Greek classics for a wider readership. Women have great influence in the poem, even if their active voices are not laid out in the lines of the poems. The project of female translators has changed over the ages, and the possibilities of The Iliad lie in the universality of the story. Translators from Dacier to Emily Wilson have adapted the Greek to reflect societal and political concerns of their era. There is a legacy of male translators which female translators have worked against and subverted by decentering the patriarchal story of The Iliad. Despite the homosocial vision of The Iliad, the irony lies in the fact that this great war between the Trojans and the Achaeans originated in the pursuit of a woman. Achilles identifies Helen as the source of the war in The Iliad, wondering why ‘we, for all our hearts’ sorrow, quarrelled together for the sake of a girl in soul-perishing hatred?’ (Homer 19.58-9). The cause of the Trojan war boiled down to ‘the sake of a girl’ is simplistic but illuminating (19.59). American literary critic George Steiner writes about Dacier’s contemporary, Pope, whose 1715-20 translation of The Iliad was followed by a succession of notable ‘Homers’: the Modernist ‘masters, such as D. H. Lawrence, W. H. Auden and, supremely, Joyce’, as well as Derek Walcott’s Omeros (372). Steiner only references Mme Dacier in passing and focuses more attention on the importance of George Chapman’s The Illiads (1598), so this near-absence emphasises the need to commemorate the important work of female translators and writers (367). A gap of several hundred years separates Dacier’s translation in 1699, and the first English translation of The Iliad by a woman, Caroline Alexander in 2015. Emily Wilson’s translation is the newest, having been published in 2023. The epic poem benefits from such retellings as the role of women in The Iliad is significant. Besides line by line translation, fiction retellings by female writers expose aspects of The Iliad which are pertinent to modern society. Amongst the fictional retellings of The Iliad, Alice Oswald’s poetic reimagining, Memorial (2011), focuses on the fatalities and brutality of warfare, whilst Pat Barker offer a feminist retelling from the perspective of Briseis in The Silence of the Girls (2018). These female-centric adaptations of The Iliad nonetheless represent translations of the poem, but demonstrate the creative potential to modernise the story. Caroline Alexander’s translation has been criticised as too traditional, as she uses free verse so that the lines can replicate the language of the Greek. Sometimes viewed as a more old-fashioned manner of translating, Alexander wrote that ‘the offering of a complete translation of The Iliad should strive to replicate the Greek original in as many ways as the English language allows’ (51). Her traditional approach can make for a less fluid read in modern English, but as we have seen before with Dacier, when handling such an iconic poem, any translation choices are held up for questioning. The debate is much less gender-based than Dacier’s time, but Alexander’s choice was unique and was founded in her principles as a translator. Moving onto Emily Wilson’s text, it is the newest in the translations of The Iliad. Naoíse Mac Sweeney noted in her review that Wilson’s The Iliad avoids ‘an unwarranted glorification of violence on the one hand and tedium on the other’ (Mac Sweeney). The tedium which was criticised in Dacier and even Alexander’s work indicates a key difference with Wilson’s translation. She differs from the two other translators’ intention to retain the original meaning and style as she modernises the poem in places, and like Alexander she uses a freer iambic pentameter which does not limit her lines to an archaic meter. Mac Sweeney also remarks that a ‘key element in Wilson’s style is the register, poised between the high epic and the everyday’, which is far removed from Dacier’s Neoclassical style. Building upon this, the importance of Wilson’s often colloquial style is paramount as her Odyssey is refreshing, lyrical and evocative of ancient times but importantly modern. Coupled with the quick pace, Wilson’s translation attests to the transformation from Dacier’s aim to retain Homer’s voice to Wilson’s much more modern voice. However, Wilson is aware of her place in a long line of translators and the project of women working within the classics. For example, Wilson herself identified several important words in her translation, including a term which Helen uses to refer to herself, ‘my dog-face self’, in Book Three (Wilson 3.223). She noted that a famous American translator before her, Richmond Lattimore, chose ‘slut that I am’ which Wilson avoided (Homer trans. Lattimore). As an example of Homeric insult, this phrase has been translated as all manner of derogatory words typically attributed to women, like ‘bitch’ and ‘wanton’, but the actual Greek is not necessarily interpreted as a sexist insult. Wilson’s choice to avoid the gendered derogatory insult suggests Helen’s sense of irony towards her role in the war rather than a sexist self-reprimand. It is, in any case, an oxymoron, and so can be interpreted with some freedom. This is not to say that Homer’s texts are free from misogynistic thinking, but that a modern translation can reframe the way in which female characters in particular view themselves and can be presented as three-dimensional beings. The Iliad’s many translators have grappled with the key issues around retaining the original style, meter and meanings in their language. Oswald herself argues that female translators feel a ‘strange and potentially productive sense of intimate alienation’ through working with classic texts written by men, and Wilson concurs that ‘female translators often stand at a critical distance when approaching authors who are…male ’ (Oswald, in Gibson 58; Wilson). Alexander and Wilson are aware of the need to carve out a space for women to enter the world of classics, and in this way continue Dacier’s aim to widen the readership of Homer. Their removal from the story is much more due to historical bias against female translators than the tale itself, and so their work adds significantly to the modern critical understanding of The Odyssey and The Iliad. Emily Wilson’s Odyssey and Atwood’s Penelopiad Emily Wilson’s The Odyssey in 2018 was the first translation into English by a woman, another milestone in the world of classics, which aims to modernise the story whilst retaining its swift pace. In Book 22, twelve young women working in Odysseus’ palace are suspected of disloyalty and are killed without any real justification or mercy. Wilson’s translation describes how ‘They gasped, feet twitching for a while, but not for long’ (22.473-4). The cruelty of their killing is emphasised, however the conjunction ‘but’ reassures the reader that they do not suffer for long. Wilson spoke about the translation of violence, particular gender-based acts in the poem, and criticised how ‘contemporary translators and commentators often present the massacre of these women as if it were quite ordinary, and entirely justified’. This moment in the tale requires careful reading in modern day society, as contemporary concerns around gender violence demand that the culture of victim blaming is changed. Wilson’s translation can be read in light of the widely recognised translations, as she uses the words to garner new meaning which sympathises with the women rather than suggesting culpability. Looking back at another famous translation, Alexander Pope went further by offering a misogynistic outlook of the enslaved women in The Odyssey. In his 1726 translation, he used defamatory language, calling the slave-girls the ‘nightly prostitutes’ and ‘base revilers of our house and name’ . He overtly demonises the women, portraying them as immoral and explicitly to blame. His version may be a product of his time, but nonetheless presents a merciless approach to the women in the story. Wilson stated that she wanted to ‘bring out the horror of what happened to these women’ and restore dignity to them, which is evident in her brutal yet emotional treatment of the enslaved girls’ unjust killing. She refers to them as girls, not creatures, and frames this scene as a crime, not a punishment, which is specifically inflicted by men in power over women. A focus on the female experience in The Odyssey also  is something which Wilson aimed to draw out. There are independent female characters like Circe the sorceress (popularised recently by Madeline Miller’s Circe) and Calypso the goddess of the sea; as well as Athena, goddess of war and wisdom, who has significant power over Odysseus’ journey home. Wilson remarked that ‘The Odyssey traces deep male fears about female power’ (Wilson). Typically, the dangerous female character has supernatural qualities, and Wilson’s interest in male anxiety brings a much more intersectional view of The Odyssey as a text that is aware of gender power dynamics. Atwood’s The Penelopiad (2005) is a gift of Homeric storytelling, transforming The Odyssey by retelling it through the perspective of the ill-fated young girls. The novella’s title uses the name of Penelope, the wife of Odysseus, to emphasise the female perspective. Atwood’s narrators are a Greek chorus, a typical narrative technique within Ancient Greek plays, and choosing the twelve murdered servant girls as the chorus restores their voices as well as reinforcing the sense of inescapable fate as women trapped in a patriarchal world. Penelope can be defined in many terms, a long suffering wife, a clever but manipulative woman, or an  entrapped wife trying to fend off male suitors. Her decision to weave a web before declaring a new husband symbolises her shrewdness, as she undoes her weaving every night to keep her suitors at bay. Wilson lists Atwood’s The Penelopiad among the greatest classical reimaginings by women, which subvert and even resist classic translations. The Penelopiad has been performed onstage in several productions and contributes to the ever-growing genre of Ancient Greek retellings which shed light on the female experience. Wilson’s translations are thus part of a contemporary shift in classical studies to expand the world of the epic poems to consider marginalised figures and interrogate gender roles. Much can be learnt from the women who have taken on the challenge of translating The Iliad and The Odyssey. From Dacier’s pioneering work shedding a light on the limits of female education, to Wilson’s modernising translation and the retellings in contemporary fiction, the female translator’s voice has surmounted obstacles surrounding these classics. The role of a female translator can bring to life the nuances of warfare and de-centre the story from a purely phallocentric world and have much to contribute to the ever-diversifying world of classicism. Dacier's defence of her place in the classics world made her a trailblazer, and as classical studies have become more inclusive, female translators like Alexander and Wilson have followed in her stead. The very existence of a translation by a woman, my study has shown, presents a milestone in translation, indicating the gender disparity in the classics. Female translators have thus been breaking down the barriers to Homer’s texts for hundreds of years. Bibliography Primary Sources Astell, Mary. ‘A Serious Proposal to the Ladies, For the Advancement of Their True and Greatest Interest’ (1694), Early Modern Women on The Fall: An Anthology, ed. Michelle M. Dowd and Festa, Thomas, Arizona State University, 2012, https://asu.pressbooks.pub/early-modern-women-on-the-fall/chapter/a-serious- proposal-to-the-ladies/#footnote-155-1. Atwood, Margaret. The Penelopiad. Canons, 2018 Dacier, Anne Le Fèvre. ‘Preface to L'Iliade d'Homère’ (1711), French Translators, 1600-1800: An Online Anthology of Prefaces and Criticism, no. 17, June 2008. Scholarworks @ UMass Amherst, https://scholarworks.umass.edu/french_translators/17. Homer, The Iliad, trans. Caroline Alexander. Ecco Press: New York, 2016. Homer, The Iliad, trans. Emily Wilson. WW Norton & Co: New York, 2023. Homer, The Odyssey, trans. Emily Wilson. WW Norton & Co: New York, 2018. Homer. The Iliad Homer. The Odyssey Oswald, Alice. Memorial. Faber & Faber, 2011. The Odyssey by Homer, trans. Alexander Pope (1715-1720). The Odyssey of Homer, trans. Richard Lattimore. HarperCollins, London, 1967. Secondary Sources Alexander, Caroline. ‘On Translating Homer’s Iliad’, Dædalus, the Journal of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences, vol. 145, no. 2, 2016, pp.50-58. Gibson, Richard Hughes. ‘On Women Englishing Homer’, Arion: A Journal of Humanities and the Classics, vol. 26, no. 3, 2019, pp. 35-68. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/arion.26.3.0035. Harlitz-Kern, Erika. ‘What happens when women translate the Classics’, The Week, Jan 2020. The Week, https://theweek.com/articles/872174/what-happens-when-women- translate-classics. Hepburn, Lauren. ‘Anne Le Fèvre Dacier: Homer’s First Female Translator’, Peter Harrington Gallery, Nov. 2019, https://www.peterharringtongallery.co.uk/blog/anne-le- fevre-dacier-homers-first-female-translator/. Logan, William. ‘Plains of Blood’, New York Times, Dec. 2012. NYT, https://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/23/books/review/memorial-alice-oswalds-version-of- the-iliad.html. Mac Sweeney, Naoíse. ‘The new ‘Iliad’ translation is a genuine page-turner’, The Washington Post, Sept. 2023, https://www.washingtonpost.com/books/2023/09/21/iliad-translation- emily-wilson-review/. Pieretti, Marie-Pascale. ‘Women Writers and Translation in Eighteenth-Century France’, The French Review, vol. 75, no. 3, Feb. 2002, pp. 474-488. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/3132846. Radzinski, Meytal. Women in Translation movement. WIT, https://www.womenintranslation.org/. Steiner, George. ‘Homer in English translation’, The Cambridge Companion to Homer, ed. Robert Fowler, Cambridge UP, 2004, pp. 363-375. Cambridge Core, https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/cambridge-companion-to-homer/homer-in- english-translation/B50623B7EB448B51A4F9AA9F22CE7639. Trélat, Fabienne. ‘Saumur. Anne Dacier, femme savante protégée de Louis XIV’, Le Courrier de l’Ouest, Sept. 2021. Ouest-France, https://www.ouest-france.fr/pays-de-la- loire/saumur-49400/saumur-anne-dacier-femme-savante-protegee-de-louis-xiv- 60a5bbca-17a0-11ec-9f73-6fd91ee9f0dd. Weinbrot, Howard D. “Alexander Pope and Madame Dacier’s Homer: Conjectures Concerning Cardinal Dubois, Sir Luke Schaub, and Samuel Buckley.” Huntington Library Quarterly, vol. 62, no. 1/2, 1999, pp. 1–23. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/3817806. Accessed 13 June 2024. Wilson, Emily. ‘A translator’s reckoning with the Women of the Odyssey’, The New Yorker, Dec. 2017, https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/a-translators-reckoning-with-the- women-of-the-odyssey. Wilson, Emily. ‘Emily Wilson on 5 crucial decisions she made in her ‘Iliad’ translation’, The Washington Post, Sept. 2023, https://www.washingtonpost.com/books/2023/09/20/emily- wilson-iliad-translation-terms/. Wilson, Emily. ‘Found in translation: how women are making the classics their own’, The Guardian, July 2017. The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/jul/07/women-classics-translation-female- scholars-translators.

"Well! What could be more unjust! Our life, our liberty, our fortune are no longer ours; leaving childhood, turned over to a despot whom often the heart finds repulsive, the most beautiful days of our life slip away in moans and tears, while our fortune becomes prey to fraud and debauchery. . .” The historiography surrounding the French Revolution often neglects the role of women, primarily due to the male-centric narratives prevalent in contemporary accounts. Etta Palm d'Aelders, a figure less commonly acknowledged, was born in the Netherlands in 1743 and emerged as a noteworthy female agent for the French Secret Service during this transformative period. Having relocated to Paris in the late 1760s, d'Aelders, through well-connected relationships, garnered access to complex social circles. Notably, she was recruited as a spy by Jean Frédéric Phélypeaux, Count of Maurepas, and her espionage activities extended to serving the interests of both her home country and Prussia, reflecting the complexities of her allegiances. Her involvement with the Société Patriotique et Démocratique des Amis de la Constitution, colloquially known as the Club of the Cordeliers, marked a significant phase in d'Aelders' life during the French Revolution. Within this political club advocating democratic principles and the abolition of monarchy, she utilised her platform to champion the cause of women's rights, a radical stance considering the prevailing societal norms. Notably, in March 1791, d'Aelders established the Société Patriotique et de Bienfaisance des Amies de la Vérité, a female counterpart to Cercle social. This organisation aimed to address societal disparities by providing support to impoverished families, establishing educational workshops for young girls, and offering shelter and services for underprivileged women throughout France. Unfortunately, the society's impact did not align with d'Aelders' aspirations. D'Aelders' significance peaked at the French National Convention in 1790 when she delivered a discourse titled 'Discourse on the Injustice Of the Laws in Favor of Men, at the Expense of Women.' In this address, she articulated the challenges faced by women and advocated for their inclusion in political processes. Acknowledging the nuances of her political allegiance, d'Aelders admitted to a prolonged journey towards supporting the French Revolution. She was politically conflicted due to her dual roles in serving the French government and harbouring sympathies for the revolutionaries, her complexity underscores the intricate landscape of the time. Ultimately, d'Aelders faced repercussions for her espionage activities, enduring imprisonment for four years before her release in 1798. Tragically, her death less than a year after her release, with an unmarked grave serving as her final resting place. While Etta Palm d'Aelders may not enjoy the same historical recognition as her male counterparts, her contributions to the feminist movement and steadfast commitment to challenging societal norms should not be dismissed. In an era characterised by upheaval, her advocacy served as a catalyst for progress, leaving behind a legacy that continues to inspire those dedicated to fostering a more inclusive and equitable society. Although the fruition of her aspirations for women's rights took time, her advocacy remains a pivotal moment in the ongoing trajectory towards gender equality in France.

Glossary McCarthyism: An intense campaign against alleged communists in the US carried out in the mid-twentieth century under Senator Joseph McCarthy. Many of the accused were blacklisted or lost their jobs, although most did not belong to the Communist Party. “I’ve always known I was gifted, which is not the easiest thing in the world for a person to know, because you’re not responsible for your gift, only for what you do with it.” Spoken by Hazel Scott herself, these words encapsulate her greatness as a figure who navigated the realms of entertainment and activism to challenge racial inequality in the United States, but who you have most likely never heard of before. Born on 11th June 1920 in Port of Spain, Trinidad, Hazel Dorothy Scott was the only child of Thomas Scott and Alma Long Scott. Just four years later, the Scott family moved to the United States, where Hazel would become one of the highest paid Black entertainers, a steadfast advocate for Civil Rights, and the first person of African descent in the USA to host their own television show. Encouraged by her mother, a classically trained pianist, Hazel’s musical talent blossomed early in her life. At the age of eight, half that of the usual student age requirement, her piano audition for the Julliard School of Music convinced a professor that she was a “genius”. She was awarded a scholarship for private tuition under Professor Oscar Wagner. This was the first of many barriers she would break over her successful career. In 1933, she entered the male dominated jazz scene in New York City, joining her mother’s all-woman band. Two years later, aged only fifteen, she performed her first independent performance at the Roseland Dance Hall, and by age sixteen she had become known for her regular performances on radio shows. Having gained a reputation as a classical and jazz pianist in the city, Scott’s big break came in 1939, when blues singer Ida Cox was unable to appear for her performance at Café Society in Downtown New York. Founded by Barney Josephson, the club had opened its doors a year prior and had quickly become a hotspot for jazz music and progressive ideas. The venue provided a platform for Black artists to perform for racially mixed audiences, challenging the prevailing segregation norms of the time. Discussions on political issues were also held in the venue, and it quickly became a unique and influential institution in New York’s cultural landscape. Left without a performer, and on the recommendation of Jack Gilford who hosted shows at the club and had heard Hazel play at a bar in Harlem, Josephson invited her to audition. Hazel secured the job, and a temporary slot at the club until Ida’s return became a seven and a half year stint, with a 1942 Daily News article dubbing her ‘High Priestess of Hot Piano’ and heralding her ‘an institution’ at the club compared to the venue’s other revolving artists. Over the years at Café Society, her earnings rose from $65 per week to $4000 per week, and by 1945 her annual salary equates to over $1 million today. Having risen to stardom in New York’s jazz scene, Scott’s fame and experience at Café Society led her to adopt a hard line with regard to venues she would play. She had it stipulated in her contract that she would not play before segregated audiences. Her stance on the issue was uncompromising and led her to walk out of several venues, with one such instance leading to her being escorted out of Austin, Texas, by Texas Rangers for her safety after her refusal to play to an audience separated by ‘Black’ and ‘white’ zones caused a violent uproar. After the incident, she told Time Magazine: “Why would anyone come near me, a Negro, and refuse to sit beside someone just like me?”. By the mid 1940s, Hazel had made her Broadway debut in Sing Out the News and had started to take on roles in movies, appearing the majority of the time as herself. On the Hollywood scene, Hazel was outspoken about the treatment of Black women within the industry. At the time, it was typical for Black women to be cast predominantly in roles as maids, prostitutes, and slaves. For herself, Hazel had it stipulated in her contract that she would not play such roles. But she also advocated for the other Black women on the sets that she worked on. In her first film appearance, Shout About (1943), Scott played herself and her contract stipulated that she “[wouldn’t] wear a handkerchief or dirty clothes in a film.” On the set of The Heat’s On (1943), Scott refused to work until the eight African American actresses on the film whose costumes included dirty aprons “for a worn effect”, were replaced with clean ones. For her protests, especially as a result of her three-day-long strike on The Heat’s On, she was blacklisted by executives and her Hollywood career was cut short. Scott’s fight against racial discrimination also extended into a legal case. In 1949, backed by prominent Civil Rights organisation, The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), she won a racial discrimination federal lawsuit. The case was the first federal lawsuit against racial discrimination in the Inland Northwest and was brought against husband and wife restaurant owners in Pasco for $50,000. Hazel and companion Eunice Wolfe  had been refused service based on their race, with Hazel’s complaint specifying that she was denied service “without any reason whatsoever except she was a Negro.”. The case garnered much media attention at the time. The Evening News reported: ‘Hazel Scott Accuses Coast Restaurant’ and complained that Hazel and her husband, Harlem Congressman, pastor, and civil rights leader, Adam Clayton Powell Jr., were both acting as plaintiffs, despite the fact that he was not present at the restaurant. Scott won the case and gave the money she was awarded to the NAACP. Just over a year later, in April 1950, the first fifteen minute episode of The Hazel Scott Show aired on the DuMont Network - the first television show in the U.S. to feature a Black woman as its host. Episodes featured several piano performances by Scott, and, from its first broadcast, the show was immensely popular, leading the network to quickly triple the number of weekly national broadcasts. At only thirty years old, Hazel Scott had become a trailblazer in the entertainment industry and a symbol of resistance to racial injustice. However, only one month after her show aired, in the shadow of McCarthyism, Hazel Scott, like many of her contemporaries e.g., Langston Hughes, was declared a communist sympathiser by the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC). This followed a claim in Red Channels (a pamphlet compiled by former FBI agents which listed names of individuals in the entertainment industry who were suspected of having communist affiliations or sympathies) that she was affiliated with, participated in, or sponsored numerous communist organisations. The accusations damaged her reputation within the entertainment industry, which was left in ruins when she testified before the HUAC on 22 September 1950. Hazel denied all allegations and criticised the onslaught of false accusations against performers. Exactly one week later, The Hazel Scott Show was permanently cancelled. In the years that followed, Hazel and her husband separated, divorcing in 1960. In 1957, she moved to Paris with her son, Adam Clayton Powell III. She was able to revive her music career in Europe, although her career never again reached pre-McCarthy heights. Undeterred by being blacklisted in the U.S., Scott continued her advocacy of Civil Rights. In 1963, she marched alongside James Baldwin and many others to the U.S. Embassy in Paris to support Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s March on Washington. Scott returned to the U.S. in the late 1960s and died of pancreatic cancer in 1981, aged only sixty-one. Hazel Scott stood out in mid-twentieth century America for her ability to strike the keys of entertainment and activism in perfect harmony. She felt the responsibility of her gift and with it, she relentlessly challenged racial injustice and inequality. Hazel Scott, among many things, was a pianist, protestor, and pioneer deserving of a place in popular memory alongside widely celebrated figures such as Harry Belafonte and Ella Fitzgerald. Further Reading Chilton, K., Hazel Scott: The Pioneering Journey of a Jazz Pianist from Café Society to Hollywood to HUAC (The University of Michigan Press, 2008) Mack, D., ‘Hazel Scott: A Career Curtailed’,  The Journal of African American History, 91.2 (2006), 153-170 Mack, D., ‘Hazel Scott (1920-1981)’, BlackPast.org, (2007) [Last Accessed: 26/01/2024] McGee, K. A., Some Like it Hot: Jazz Women in Film and Television, 1928-1959 (Wesleyan University Press, 2009) Regester, C. B., African American Actresses: The Struggle for Visibility, 1900-1960 (Indiana University Press, 2010) Tucker, N., ‘Hazel Scott: The Gorgeous Face of Jazz at the Mid-Century’, Library of Congress Blogs, (2021) [Last Accessed: 26/01/2024]

It is very clear that true crime documentaries grasp the attention of nearly everyone around the world. Call it a natural instinct to gather all information to protect yourselves/family or call it morbid curiosity. Some cases stick with you for much longer and the Princes in the Tower mystery is no exception. It has been accepted for hundreds of years that the princes (Edward V and Richard, Duke of York) were murdered by their uncle and former king, Richard III. There were also perceived pretenders of both Edward and Richard during their time. But now, it seems, they may not have been pretending after all? From the word go, the documentary felt like this was going to be another attempt to make Richard III look like a saint. To be clear, he still doesn’t look like a saint but to be even clearer, no royalty in history has been a saint. At the heart of the research and documentary is Phillipa Langley was the beating heart of the research and nothing has changed about her passion and dedication to the history of Richard III and the end of the Wars of the Roses. Quite frankly, it is inspirational. What did confuse me was the need for a judge to be involved. Specifically, Rob Rinder (as in THE Judge Rinder). Rob does have first-class honours in Politics and Modern History which is relevant to the premise of the documentary. From my understanding, he was there to add an official and professional voice and this was to play out more like a murder trial or a “cold case”, in Phillipa’s words. Over 300 people have joined Phillipa’s ‘The Missing Princes Project’ in which many people have been involved in the concoction of criminal investigation and historical research. Maybe it is fair to dub them internet sleuths, to an extent. But the research, clearly, goes deeper. Rob and Phillipa travel across the continent to bask in findings from hundreds of years ago. The first was a 1487 receipt from King Maximilian I of the Holy Roman Empire for an order of pikes to help the Yorkist invasion of England. The ‘Madame de Dowager’ or Margaret of York, Duchess of Burgundy (the Princes’ aunt and Richard's sister) had sent the men along with these pikes in battle. This evidence corresponds to the first invasion in May 1487  by a supposed impostor of Edward V- Lambert Simnel. Dr Janina Ramirez believes this document is quite compelling and I am inclined to agree. As she says, documents like witness statements, letters, diaries, and accounts of events can be forged or faked but receipts are straightforward and precise. Receipts are not usually something that anyone would bother to fake. It was clear that Margaret had paid money for the pikes and the men. It raises the question of why these princes' aunt would pay so much money to support this random boy if she did not believe that he was not her nephew. Information had been discovered about a coronation that had taken place in Dublin, attended by John de la Pole, in which the supposed Edward V was crowned. Or at least, this is what Matt Lewis (the chairman of the Richard III Society) believes is the correct account. Another historian, Nathen Amen contradicts this and believes this was the coronation of the princes’ cousin, Edward Earl of Warwick. From further research, this was more of a political statement as not one sovereign had been crowned before (or since) in Ireland and was a “remarkable show of defiance by the Anglo-Irish”, according to the historian/archaeologist Christiaan Corlett for Coles Lane Heritage. There is seemingly no doubt that a political event, like a coronation, took place, but to say that it involved Edward is a very large stretch. There is no physical evidence in the documentary to suggest this is the case, either. It is hard to rely on Lewis as a source due to the bias there is towards Richard III and evidence like this would exonerate Richard in the murder of his nephews as it would prove they were still alive. This was probably their weakest argument in the documentary. Margaret of Burgundy had a retirement palace in Belgium which she had altered through renovations in 1496. Account books from this period showed that there was a new room added and labelled “Richard’s Room” on an arch. Rob Rinder asks “Which Richard?” to which Phillipa exclaims “The younger Prince in the tower”. There is no proof of the younger Richard being this particular prince that is shown or discussed in the episode and this leaves it open to interpretation; could the room have been named after Margaret’s brother, King Richard III, instead? A discovery made by Nathalie Nijman-Bliekendaal of the Dutch Research Group of a document written by Richard, the younger prince, seemed to really grasp the attention of Phillipa Langley and Rob Rinder. This whole document is approximately ten years of this boy’s life squeezed into four pages. It is in Middle Dutch and, according to Nijman-Bliekendaal, has possibly been translated from French or Latin. The account discusses the involvement of Thomas and Henry Percy in the movement of the princes to and in the Tower. According to the experts, it is true that Henry and Thomas Percy were there and that they were in Richard III’s inner circle. However, using this as an argument to say that this statement was certainly written by one of the princes is a little bit of a leap. It would have been widely known that the Percy brothers were part of Richard III’s inner circle to anyone alive at the time, anyone involved in politics, and a position of power during his reign. The discussion of the document’s original dialect also made it more questionable. Perkin Warbeck was originally from Belgium, a country known for speaking Flemish and French, so for the document to have been written in Middle Dutch but translated from French provides evidence that this was written by Warbeck as an impostor rather than one of the real princes. Understandably, this could be similar to a witness report of what he had experienced from imprisonment to freedom. However, there are too many possible explanations concerning the document that its credibility is limited. Rob Rinder also displays the document to Dr Janina Ramirez who believes the document needs further investigation and that it is very convenient considering the circumstances surrounding it. With it being four pages that supposedly discuss ten years of this person’s life takes away from its legitimacy further as this is almost too condensed. Other documents are discussed in the documentary such as one held in Dresden, Germany. Professor Henricke Lahemann presents a document from 1493 of a pledge of support to ‘Prince Richard’ to regain the throne of England but to also repay Albert of Saxony’s 30,000 florins within three months of becoming King. The document has seals attached which are royal in origin and contain the ‘R’ standing for ‘Rex’. The document is also signed. The only evidence the document gives to this document legitimately being signed by the real Prince Richard is “it says at the beginning of the document that the signature is on”. It was also written and signed by someone with a confident hand and someone who speaks and writes English. The document clearly holds more weight than that of the previous one found by Nijman-Bliekendaal. Ramirez also views the document and exclaims the seals are “of the time”. Again, there is no further evidence to suggest this was written by the real Prince Richard and there is no handwriting known by Richard that can be compared to this document to add to its credibility. The last document to be highlighted in this review is the account of the Holy Roman Emperor, Maximilian I and Prince Richard's meeting, written by Maximilian’s French scribe in 1492. Maximilian decided to give his support to Richard’s campaign as Richard had shown signs in the form of marks on his body which people who knew him knew he had. These marks were on his eye, his lip, and his thigh. The Austrian state archive holds this document which is rational as Maximilian was born in Austria and remained there until his death. This was probably the most compelling of the evidence presented. It can also be pulled apart, only slightly. Did they have their ways of faking these marks or could people have just said these marks existed when they did not, just to have a compelling story? It is hard to accept any of the evidence at face value. What is not in doubt is that the documents originate from the correct period (the 15th century) and this is confirmed by experts in the field. However, they come from a period with so much colluding and deceit that there are several different possible reasons for their existence. The research conducted by Phillipa Langley and Rob Rinder is thorough and vast, spreading across the European continent. It involved many experts and a large collective of individuals invested in the project. But I can’t help but feel the bias of a lot of experts in the documentary, not to mention the bias that Langley herself has, considering her part in the Richard III society. The documentary and research could have benefited from being presented and run by an impartial expert to give more credibility. Despite this, it was interesting and did raise a lot more questions on the supposed murder of the Princes in the Tower. You can catch The Princes in the Tower: The New Evidence on Channel 4 and Philippa Langley’s Book, The Princes in the Tower: Solving History's Greatest Cold Case, is available wherever you get your books/ebooks/audiobooks.

Why is so little known about the matriarch of Ireland's most famous beverage? Guinness will always be one of Ireland’s most famous exports, besides Paul Mescal and Riverdance. However, not many people outside its motherland know a lot about its history and the man behind the “the black stuff”. Arthur Guinness’s eponymous brewing business has been churning out Ireland’s favourite drink since 1755, and it has been housed in the same brewery in Dublin since 1759, which continues to produce the stout. While today, the storehouse is home to a world famous tourist attraction, Guinness’ Brewhouse 4 is the largest stout brewery in the world. Given that St. Patrick’s Day reminds us of all things Irish, now seems the right time to look at the country’s most famous business and try to find out more about one of its most elusive figures, Arthur Guinness’ wife, Olivia Guinness. When I visited the Guinness storehouse in December of 2022, one line in a short informational video about the family explained Olivia Guinness had 21 pregnancies. She was not mentioned again besides her staggering number of births, and while her life may not have had a direct impact on the brewing of stout, this meagre attempt to present her is inherently gendered. I’m sure it’s no surprise to you that that has stayed with me, and it’s something I think about every time I see the iconic glass. When I visited again a year later, I was upset to see that the video had been replaced with a demonstration of a new product Guinness Nitrosurge, and I considered that maybe this was something worth exploring. Was it a coincidence that the company’s new machinery had replaced information on such an important part of the Guinness family? Most likely, yes, though I couldn’t help but feel bitter that the only mention of the woman so heavily involved in the continuation of the Guinness name had been erased from the tour. Why was it not implemented into another part? I spent the rest of the tour waiting for that video to reappear, but only when I started researching her further, did I understand perhaps why this had happened. An invention from 2021 had more recorded history than a woman born in 1742. She doesn’t even have a Wikipedia page. Olivia Whitmore was the daughter of grocer William Whitmore and Mary Grattan. Not much is known about Olivia’s paternal line, but there is much to be said about her mother. Despite Olivia being left fatherless, her maternal family owned land in Kildare which at the time granted Olivia a high social standing and funds that easily provided for her. This meant by the time Olivia Whitmore became Olivia Guinness, she had a sizable dowry that gave her new husband, and budding brewer, Arthur opportunity to rise in society's ranks. The bulk of the historical record for Olivia Guinness starts here, documenting her place in the marriage, and subsequently, the marriage's place in the business. She was just nineteen on her wedding day - Arthur was thirty-six. Their relationship presents itself as transactional in the eyes of history; Olivia’s respectable dowry of £1,000, equal to about £200,000 in today’s currency, combined with connections to her gentry family provided Arthur a decent start to married life, and the rare chance for a brewer to gain the social respectability he needed in the rural towns of Ireland. For Olivia’s widowed mother, marrying her daughter off to this ambitious man was an opportunity to reduce the instability caused by William Whitmore’s death and provide a somewhat secure future for her beloved daughter. Beyond her wedding is where history has admitted it knows next to nothing about her - even her family has agreed that knowledge about the matriarch of the Guinness line is limited. Historian and direct Guinness descendant Patrick Guinness brought forward these limitations in his 2008 title Arthur’s Round: The Life and Times of Brewing Legend Arthur Guinness. This was the first biography of his descendent and remains the leading work on the family’s history, and yet there are only 15 very brief references to Olivia’s life in the index. The only information the archive assistants at Guinness Archives at the Guinness Storehouse could offer me was sourced from this work. So, here, we come back to what we do know and what drew me to this enigma of a woman in the first place. Olivia Guinness had 21 pregnancies over two decades with 10  children surviving into adulthood. The lack of detail about her births and her time as a mother means historians have often had to make somewhat weak assumptions about it. One such example is that Patrick Guinness surmises that Hosea, the eldest Guinness son, had a difficult birth, alluded to by his name meaning “Jehovah is saved”. I can’t say I’m easily convinced by this, mainly because it reads as though he just needed to say something, however nonsensical, about his distant grandmother. What does it say about the value placed on historical women that the one fact that remains about Olivia relates to how many times she fell pregnant? Olivia Guinness remains a powerhouse of 18th century femininity and what it meant to be a woman. The longevity of the Guinness line ultimately comes back to her and her extensive bloodline. Olivia Guinness bore the six men that would continue the name, while supporting her husband and his business ventures for 42 years. There is something to be said about the fact nothing is said - she did her marital and biblical duty by providing the family Arthur needed, and the reason no one thought to pass on stories of her life, is that providing others life was the greatest achievement of them all. She did her duties so well that nothing else mattered. The births over the span of 20 years demonstrate that she and Arthur were sexually active - either through love for one another, or religious devotion. Given the norms governing 18th century femininity in Ireland and beyond, Olivia’s body would have been her greatest asset in demonstrating her position of power - churning out 21 pregnancies in just over 21 years was impressive even in a land where contraception was only legalised in 1979. With a maternal mortality rate as high as 1 in 5, Olivia’s survival, given the sheer number of births she experienced, is awe-inspiring. Olivia had her last child in 1787, when she was 45 and her husband was 63, which must have been a great relief for her. Despite the 10 children that survived in adulthood, there is no evidence of the suffering she undoubtedly experienced with the 11 children she sadly lost. Equally little is known about how the couple met. Many historians speculate the couple met through introductions by family friends, or Arthur’s family’s proximity to William Whitmore’s grocery shop on Essex Street. This absence of knowledge also feeds into the questioning of why this relationship was of so little importance to wider family histories. Were details of the couple’s relationship  deemed mere women’s gossip of romancing, or perhaps there was no romancing at all to tell of? From what we do know, and evidence suggesting the transactional nature of the union, the latter does seem more likely. Did Arthur merely see Olivia as a way of moving up the social ladder, and the carrier of his legacy? It seems as though we will never know, as Arthur never spoke of it, and Olivia appears to have no public voice - not even a diary or letters can be traced back to her. So, back to the question that started this all back in that little cinema in the historic brewery. Why is it so hard to find anything about this biological wonder of a woman? If her own family knows so little, what hope is there for the rest of us? With all my research, I think I have had to admit defeat on finding even a snippet of what made the woman who she was - she is destined to be the subject of tourists gasps for the rest of eternity where they learn about her spectacular mothering, alongside learning the temperature of wheat roasting. However, I think there is something to be tapped into here: the women behind some of the world’s oldest and most famous businesses are often made invisible without much of a fight. Were the achievements of Olivia’s husband so great that the trials and tribulations of her life were dismissed in favour of what she could provide for him? While her husband and his droves of sons remain at the forefront of Irish memory and glorification, Olivia and her daughters most certainly had a part to play in the magic behind the machine. Bibliography: Patrick Guinness, Arthur’s Round: The Life and Times of Brewing Legend Arthur Guinness, London, 2008. The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica, Guinness: Irish Company, 18th March 2024, https://www.britannica.com/topic/Guinness [date accessed 14/01/2024] Katie Birtles, A Brief History of Ireland’s National Drink, Guinness, 6th April 2022, https://www.trafalgar.com/real-word/a-brief-history-of-irelands-national-drink-guinness/ [date accessed: 12/01/24]

Glossary: Junk → classic Chinese sailing vessel, complete with five masts and square sails. The plunderers of the seven seas are some of the most notorious criminals in history, with records of piracy dating back to Ancient Greece - The Odyssey itself portraying these tales. It is commonly accepted that the 'pirate population' was composed solely by men, with "No Women on Board '' believed to be a common saying amongst sailors in the past. The most well known explanation for this was the notion that women would bring bad luck to the sailors, variations included women seen as 'distractions' to the sailors as well as angering the Gods who could cause rough seas and weather. However, this has since been proved wrong. During the Golden Age of Piracy (17th and 18th centuries) there are several examples of women not only sailing but also commanding fleets. The area of piracy that is most commonly recognised in modern media is in the Caribbean, where the most prevalent years of piracy largely ended in the 1730s. In these years, two women are well known to have captained pirate ships, their names were Anne Bonny and Mary Read. However, the Golden Age of Piracy was not entirely over.  In Chinese waters the 'reign of terror' of piracy persisted until the middle of the 19th century. Amongst the fearsome figures who ravaged the seas was a woman who, while not born or brought up as a pirate or even a sailor, , became the most feared person in China. This was Zheng Yi Sao (can also be found as Cheng I Sao). The woman who married into piracy and commandeered the largest fleet in the world. The literal translation of her pirate name is  'wife of Zheng Yi'. It is believed that her real name was Shi Yang, although it is impossible to say for certain as the primary sources all refer to her by her married name. This article will introduce you to the pirate and her importance to history as well as discuss the overall participation of women within piracy. Zheng Yi Sao lived during the Qing Dynasty. At this time, it was common to see women in roles in seafaring communities in coastal regions, especially if they were part of a seafaring family. Some would work driving small rafts, they would deliver necessary items to those who lived at sea as well as learn the 'domestic arts'. Throughout the Qing Dynasty, China faced many perils. Famine, wars and revolutions were some of the most well known problems. Alongside these, the large presence of piracy along the Chinese coast was a large problem for the government even before Zheng Yi Sao grew into her position as the Queen of piracy - a title granted by historians postmortem. Researchers know that Zheng Yi Sao married into piracy but some argue it was not out of choice. Certain Chinese tales from how she came into the business vary but they all agree that, before becoming the wife of Zheng Yi, she worked as a prostitute. It is believed that she was born around 1775 in Canton and married Zheng Yi - one of the most powerful pirates at the time - in 1801. Whilst not near the coast, Canton, today known as Guangzhou, became one of the most prominent and convenient riverine ports for both Chinese and foreign ships from the 18th century onwards. There are different versions of how the marriage came to be, ranging from a passive acceptance to the marriage, perhaps for the financial security it would provide, to some suggesting that the captain became infatuated by her when she tried to bite him. However, although  it is popularly accepted by most that she was a prostitute, according to Dianne Murray, there is no actual evidence in primary sources which proves she was a sex worker. This information has been gathered by analysing secondary sources that have been published - many consider piracy as a whole rather than having a specific focus on Zheng Yi Sao herself. Assumptions of prostitution may be an example of misogyny of the historians, or an educated guess of how she would have been most likely to meet him. During their marriage, they successfully brought together varying different pirate crews into one large confederation. By the time of her husband’s death, their fleet numbered seventy thousand men and 400 junks. They organised their fleet by dividing it between Red, Black, White, Yellow, Blue and Green fleets - and Zheng Yi Sao played a prominent part in the 'business'. Working alongside her husband, she understood the ins and outs of the fleet, how to manage the men, the ships, and the finances. With the expertise and experience gathered during her years - both as a sex worker and wife of the captain - there was no opposition from the crew when, after Zheng Yi's death in 1807, she took over the command. To make sure she had support throughout the fleets, Zheng Yi Sao appointed Cheng Pao, a promising young sailor who had been captured, adopted by the couple and later rumoured to have been a lover of Zheng Yi, as captain of the Red Fleet - the largest of them all. Zheng Yi Sao would later come to marry Cheng Pao to ensure further loyalty. During the period she was ‘Pirate Queen’ of Chinese waters, Zheng Yi Sao became one of the most feared persons in the South China Sea, threatening not only to the Qing Emperor but also to the members of her own confederation. She developed a code of conduct for the crew, enforcing rules that if broken would be punishable by death. Some of the aspects of the code included cowardice, raping women and taking more treasure than allowed. Her economic and military power rose to such heights that the Chinese government begged both the Portuguese and British navies in 1809 for assistance to attack Zheng Yi Sao's confederation - which was victorious in the battles against the Western forces. After many battles at sea and discussions with their crew, Zheng Yi Sao and Cheng Pao proposed negotiations with the Empire. The negotiations were futile with Cheng Pao's leadership so,  in 1810 Zheng Yi Sao went unarmed and alone to a meeting with the governor-general of the Qing Dynasty - and refused to leave until her demands were accepted. Zheng Yi Sao not only successfully administered the largest confederation of pirates in the world, but through negotiating their surrender she was able to maintain 80 junks for Cheng Pao for personal use, granting him a high military rank and additional 40 junks for commercial use. The pirates that made up their crew all got positions in the military - the fleet leaders placed in high positions and the remaining pirates serving as soldiers. Zheng Yi Sao lived alongside Cheng Pao and convinced the government to grant her titles that would equal her husband's patents. It is rumoured she started her own brothel which she successfully managed until her death in 1844. A woman with no military training or formal education, Zheng Yi Sao's impressive achievements in piracy should make her a house-hold name such as Blackbeard. From her tactics in leading the largest pirate fleet in the world to her remarkable negotiating skills that made sure no member of her fleet was to be left in danger of being charged for piracy crimes and were settled in the navy. Whether for the lack of known sources that can assert her incredible feats or simply for the small research done into women in piracy, Zheng Yi Sao was a forgotten woman in history but remains a very important figure to be studied and presented to the public. Read More about Women in Piracy and Zheng Yi Sao: → Pirate Women, the Princesess, Prostitutes and Privateers who Ruled the Seven Seas by Laura Soook Duncombe; chapter "The Most Successful Pirate of All Time" p. 237 - 256 →  Flying the Black Flag: Revolt, Revoluition and the Social Organization of Piracy in the Golden Age by Chris Land - https://doi.org/10.1177/1744935907078726 → In the Business of Piracy: Entrepreneurial Women Among Chinese Pirates in the Mid-Nineteenth Century - chapter by C. Nathan Kwan in Female Entrepreneurs in the Long Nineteenth Century → The Pirates of Macao in Historical Perspective by Robert J Antony → One Woman's Rise to Power https://www.jstor.org/stable/41298765

DISCLAIMER: The author of this article, Gemma, uses she/her pronouns and the co-author and enby Director of The HERstory Project, Abby, uses they/them/she/her pronouns. Identity is something we can all relate to. You may label yourself as a goth, you may be neurodivergent, you may be studious, and you may belong to a religious group or fabulous culture. Whilst, LGBTQAI+ identities are becoming more accepted, there is still a lot of discussion from different world leaders, podcasters, or social media keyboard warriors which believe that people wanting to identify as non-binary means they can identify as “a toaster” or “the hottest man/woman so you must accept that, too!” But where is this anger even coming from? It is not too much to ask, especially in this day and age, to accept and appreciate those who are non-binary and to respect their identity. There is so much variety in biology that leads to making us, us; the way we think, feel, look, and act. So why, specifically, does using they/them pronouns grind people’s gears so much? You may argue “it’s not proper English '' but in fact, the singular ‘they’ is older than the singular ‘you’. This article will not only explore the development of singular ‘they’ in the English language (and in Swedish), but will also demonstrate through historical events just how old being non-binary is. First of all, let’s consider gendered terminology. For many of our gendered terms, how we understand them today was not how they were originally used. “Girl” was a word to refer to any adolescent child. The term really means “brat” which again, in its strictest sense is an adolescent. Gender could then be specified by the use of “knack girl” for males, and “gay girl” for females. Easier gendered terms did exist so the use of this suggests that gender neutrality was an acknowledged fact. Also in Middle English, the word “harlot” now usually used to refer to a sexually promiscuous woman originally meant a young man, knave or vagabond. It later developed into also referring to women, then almost exclusively about women. The Tales of Caunterbury, known today as The Canterbury Tales was written by Geoffrey Chaucer between 1387 and 1400. Chaucer is the first author to have written down the word “girl” (as “gyrl”) to refer to a child. The Canterbury Tales is also the first written occurrence of ‘they’ being used in its singular form. ‘Whoso’ is a character but also refers to the syntactically singular ‘whoever’. “and whoso fyndeth hym out of switch blame, they will come up…” shows ‘Whoso’ being referred to as ‘they’. As ‘whoso/whoever’ is syntactically singular, this naturally makes ‘they’ syntactically singular, too. Chaucer wasn't the only one to use “they” in its singular form. Shakespeare uses it in several of his plays. A prime example is A Comedy of Errors, Act IV, Scene 3; “There’s not a man but doth salute me, as if I were their well-acquainted friend.” In this case, they and their work the same way as he and his or she and hers. This play was written approximately 150 years after Chaucer had used it in his work which shows that it was commonly used and unremarkable. Shakespeare also used “man” to refer to humankind so he has used two gender-non-specific terms. Yet in the twenty-first century, certain groups and individuals cannot, or will not, accept ‘they/their’ pronouns. How can the past appear more progressive than today? Both you yourself reading this today and ‘you’ in the singular form existed only after singular ‘they’. In fact, the singular version of ‘you’ remained ‘thou’ or ‘thee’ from the fifth century all the way to at least the fifteenth century.  ‘Thou’ was still in use but became the more informal singular pronoun and ‘thee’ continued to be used as the object pronoun. At this point, ‘you’ or ‘ye’ became the formal subject singular pronoun. In the seventeenth century, ‘you’ had eradicated ‘thou’ and ‘there’ and was being used in all contexts, including singular form. The question and problem of what these terms mean does not seem to arise until non-conformity becomes an issue, or rather, until it becomes an issue that traditionalists cannot ignore. However, an effort for gender neutrality in language is not new or uncommon. Linguists have traced supplementary invented words directly intended to be gender neutral alternatives to the mid-nineteenth century, for example. In more recent history (2012, to be exact), Sweden has introduced the word, ‘hen’. This word is used as a gender-neutral pronoun to avoid using masculine or feminine pronouns and especially to avoid the degrading/dehumanising ‘it’ or ‘det’ in Swedish. ‘Hen’ in this case is not like ‘they’ or ‘de’ but in fact an entirely new pronoun. It was a natural addition considering in Sweden, ‘han’ is ‘he’ and ‘hon’ is ‘she’. The term was initially received negatively, however, according to a 2023 study by Waller and Baraja,  within three years of the word being introduced Swedish people were more prone to using ‘hen’. Now, let's turn to non-binary and gender non-conforming existence throughout history. Non-binary identities are not recent. They may appear this way as society becomes more accepting and open, similar trends can be seen in conversations of queerness, neurodivergence and chronic illness. Regarding gender, there is a plethora of historical evidence, you simply have to look for it. Ancient deities, such as those who populate Greek mythology, were often depicted androgynously. ‘Goddess’ of Love, Aphrodite (Venus in Roman mythology, Inana in Sumerian, and Ištar in Akkadian) was said to appear to individuals as what they consider to be the most ‘beautiful’. In many depictions, particularly in Cyprus in later Antiquity, Aphrodite is depicted as having a beard. In a notable depiction of her ‘male’ version, she is depicted with a beard and a dress on, lifted enough to show a penis. Seeing this in person was believed to bring good fortune. This later morphed into the ‘God’ Hermaphroditus, the child of Aphrodite and Hermes. Ištar was described as being bearded ‘like the god Ašur’ but with ‘beard’ (‘ziqnu’) meaning ‘to shine’ however it is clear that worshippers both depicted and described these ‘Goddesses’ as having a physical beard on their face as that is how they thought they would look. What is clear from antiquity sources is that androgynous features were commonly associated with divinity. Early Greek physicians such as Hippocrates (as in, the Hippocratic Oath) had their own theories and ideas on the idea of intersex and non-binary people. Hippocrates believed that gender falls on a “male-female spectrum” and that hermaphrodites were “the perfect balance between male and female”. Plato saw Aristophanes give a speech about three genders and Plato writes about this in ‘The Symposium’. There were males, born from the Sun, females, born from the Earth, and androgynous, born from the moon. The androgynous people, being of both genders, had four arms, four legs, two heads and two sets of genitals. The androgynous were powerful and threatening to the Gods. Zeus did not want to destroy the androgynous so he cut them in two. The two halves would search for each other and embrace for eternity once they had found each other. Although a myth, this type of story tells us of just how much people from early history respected this spectrum of genders and created beautiful stories from them. In myth, androgynous people have power and can be reborn from love, in reality, individuals who were gender non-conforming were lauded as the divine. Non-binary, gender conformity and awareness of this is not restricted to the ancients however, whilst we cannot, and will not anachronistically impose an identity onto people who did not have the language and terminology to define themselves, it is worth identifying individuals who did not identify with their assigned gender at birth. We suggest that you look into these examples in more detail, and see our recommendations for where to start in our reading list at the end of this article! In the fourteenth century, Eleanor Rykener, also known as John, was arrested for being a ‘crossdressing prostitute’. They dressed as a women, solicited to both men and women and once arrested was defined as male. The Chevalier d’Eon was a French soldier who lived the first half of their life as a man, and the second half as a woman. To gain public and Royal acceptance of her identity, d’Eon claimed (and convinced) the king of France that she had been born female and raised male. Now she wanted to revert to her true sex. It was only upon her death that she was ‘outed’ as what we may call transgender, as when her body was prepared, male genitalia was discovered. Mary Ann Talbot, also known as John Taylor, crossdressed in the eighteenth century in order to become a sailor and a soldier during the French Revolutionary Wars. Staying within maritime history, female pirates and lovers Anne Bonny and Mary Read began their pirating days in male garb, both falling for the other without realising their true genders. Whilst both actually later identified as women and are shown to live as women later on, this is a true example of gender and sexuality non-conformity (the pair appear in the second series of Our Flag Means Death, and are also the inspiration for another non-binary character on the show). Another example of gender nonconformity for romantic freedom is Radclyffe Hall, an English Poet and author who identified as an ‘congenital invert’. Hall’s experiences are fairly unique in this list as they lived as sexologists were beginning to discuss the idea of a ‘third gender’. This ‘third gender’ was typically connected to manifestations of what we might call lesbianism. Hall had preferred the name ‘John’, to their given name ‘Marguerite’ in childhood. Their novel, The Well of Loneliness followed an ‘invert’, Stephen Gordon, an upper-class masculine woman as she explored her gender, sexuality and position. It is believed to be at least partially autobiographical. So gender non-conformity and identity crises are not a modern phenomenon. Furthermore, non-binary can also be understood as a manifestation of biology. Herculine Barbin, later known as Abel, was a French writer whose experiences with gender and sex exemplify the difficulty of defining these on a binary. Barbin was assigned female at birth, raised female and was actually referred to as Alexina. Later in life she was reclassified under law as male. In her memoir she refers to herself as female and uses masculine and feminine versions of French words interchangeably. In French and other Romance languages (languages evolved from Latin), nouns have a gender, and change form depending on the subject of a sentence. I use she/her pronouns when referring to Barbin to make this discussion clearer. When writing“I was happy about it”, she uses the feminine version “heureuse”, whilst the masculine version is “heureux”. In the sentence, “I had to live there as a stranger” she uses “étranger” (stranger) in the masculine form, the feminine form would be “étrangère”. This suggests that Barbin herself considered her gender to be somewhat fluid. Barbin became a teacher’s assistant and fell in love with a woman. She was also examined by a doctor, Dr. Chesnet, who claimed that Herculine had female genitalia but no obvious signs of a womb and also showed male body characteristics, including male reproductive organs. This led to the doctor to conclude she was “male, hermaphroditic” which today would be referred to as male pseudohermaphroditism. With this information, and the fact that she was having a relationship with another woman, the court assigned her male. Herculine found this ridiculous but after this, she changed her name and moved away from her lover, Sara. She lived in poverty until her untimely death at the age of 29. Her birthday is the date for Intersex Day of Remembrance (8th November). It is important to state that intersex people are not inherently non-binary and vice versa, however, intersex people are also gender non-conforming and do have an important place in this discussion. A recent piece of history is the fight to be labelled as ‘X’ rather than ‘M’ (male), or ‘F’ (female). Alex MacFarlane, an Australian activist and intersex person, was born with the chromosome XXY, also known as Klinefelter Syndrome. Alex felt that they felt that they were committing fraud if they were to be assigned either male or female on their birth certificate and their passport, when they were not either. Alex argued their case with the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and despite initially being told that the system only understood ‘M’ or ‘F’,  it was decided that Alex was correct. The conclusion was that’ ‘X should and would be used in their passport, but also on passports of those who were also non-binary and those who were intersex and identified as non-binary. Alex’s experiences have highlighted a legitimate legal issue when it comes to gender (and sex) identity. Acknowledgement and acceptance of intersex, non-binary and other gender non-conforming identities is both important to individuals and to the benefit of wider society. For example, in 2011 and 2022, Antoinette “Tony” Briffa, a third generation Maltese-Australian was elected Mayor of Hobsons Bay, the first person who is intersex and non-binary to be a mayor. Tony was born intersex and identifies as non-binary. Specifically, they were born with partial androgen insensitivity syndrome (AIS). They have worked tirelessly for the LGBTQAI+ community in which their whole Mayoral program focused on. They have also won many awards for their work in the community but also works with children. Tony was even a foster carer before their first Mayoral run. A little like Alex’s situation, they have also had issues with their legal documentation, having three separate birth certificates that have stated female, then male, and now blank. Something Tony would like to see is a birth certificate reflecting “the way nature made us”. Alex and Tony instigate an important conversation regarding gender non-conformity and emphasise the need for acceptance of gender identity. The world is better off legally and socially when we accept everyone for who they are. Notable contemporary non-binary and gender non-conforming people are Richard O’Brien, Suzy Eddie Izzard and Divina de Campo. Richard O’Brien** is a British-New Zealand actor, writer and stunt person. They identify as third gender, feeling neither male nor female but uses he/him pronouns. Whilst Richard started out in the film and television industry as a stunt person in ‘Carry on Cowboy’, his more notable work is writing, composing and acting in ‘The Rocky Horror (Picture) Show’. (If you haven’t seen it, you’re really missing out!) This was a musical written for the stage in 1973 and ‘broke’ so many gender norms to create this cult classic. There was cross-dressing, sexual expression, use of the terms ‘transvestite’ and ‘transsexual’. It also allowed its audience to equally express these things and appreciate this world. I have seen straight men dressed as Dr. Frank-N-Furter but not to make fun of the role, but to have fun in that role. There were so many sexual orientations and gender orientations in a film and theatre production that is now 50 years old. This is all because of Richard O’Brien’s desire to express himself and to demonstrate that gender and sexuality is not black and white, something he realised very early on in life. Suzy Eddie Izzard was long known as just Eddie Izzard for a long time, working in films such as My Super Ex-Girlfriend, Victoria & Abdul, and Stay Close. They also lent their voice to Cars 2 and The Lego Batman Movie amongst others. What they were most notable for was their stand-up comedy with a long list of stand-up specials. Suzy was also very open with wearing nail polish and make up whilst people still thought of them as Eddie, a comedic man who did the occasional film and television appearance. They self-described in the early 2000’s as an “executive transvestite” and “male lesbian” and when asked what people think of this look on an E! News Daily interviews, they stated “80% of people don’t give a monkeys [they don’t care]” and this is very much true, no one seemed to bat their eyelids at it and why should they? What is so loveable about Suzy is their ability to be so unapologetically them throughout their whole life and being so open when people could be so cruel. Eddie added Suzy to their name in March 2023 but has always wanted to be called Suzy since the age of ten. They describe themselves as genderfluid and uses transgender as an umbrella term but has known since the young age of four they were trans. Suzy discusses pronouns saying that “no one can make a mistake” and has “boy mode” and “girl mode” where he/him may be preferred, or she/her may be preferred when in those respective modes. Recently, they have moved into politics, running as a Labour MP for Brighton in 2023 (but lost the bid- never say never). Looking back on history and political history, people like Suzy need to be in politics as this representation is so important but also continues the conversation where political power is at its strongest. They’re in their 60’s, too (can you believe it?) and it goes to show it is never too late to start being your true authentic self, politician and all. Divina de Campo shot to fame on the first series of RuPaul’s Drag Race UK after doing drag since 2005. Whilst in Manchester, they regularly visited Manchester’s Gay Village and performed at Kiki (a bar that closed in 2020). As well as their time on Drag Race, they have won Best Performance at the UK Theatre Awards as Hedwig in Hedwig and the Angry Inch as part of Leeds Playhouse and HOME co-production.  They are non-binary and use all pronouns. de Campo is still on the rise and it is exciting to see what they do in the future but the reason they are being discussed here and now is their videos of well researched and thought-provoking videos on how drag queens are not ‘hurting’ children and those who are saying they’re a danger are the ones who are hurting children (and the country) the most. The messages are important and shut down, frankly, homophobic views. Check out Divina de Campo on Instagram (@divinadecampo) Gender fluidity comes with being human like breathing, being blonde, having hazel eyes or maybe an extra or missing limb does. Using singular ‘they/them’ is not breaking any grammar rules as we have seen from Chaucer and Shakespeare’s works and has existed for nearly eight centuries as written history demonstrates. Therefore, using ‘incorrect grammar’ as an excuse to dismiss a whole gender identity becomes obsolete. Even so, language has demonstrated since the existence of the spoken word that it, too, is fluid and people will use it however they want and however they need. In the words of Miriam Margolyes “what does it matter to you [what pronouns someone uses]. If you can make somebody happy by calling them ‘they’ instead of he or she, why not do it?” *rhyme supplied by @zombiecolour on Instagram, go check out their manicure skills! ** Comments previously made by Richard O’Brien regarding transgender people are thoughts not reflected by The HERstory Project or any of our team Further Reading Briffa, Tony. “Cr Antoinette (Tony) Briffa.” Briffa, briffa.org/. Accessed 23 Nov. 2023. Clarke, Mollie. “‘I Need Never Have Known Existence’: Radclyffe Hall and LGBTQ+ Visibility.” The National Archives, 29 Apr. 2021, https://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/i-need-never-have-known-existence-radclyffe-hall-and-lgbtq-visibility/. Accessed 10 Sept. 2023. Davidson, Arnold I. “Sex and the Emergence of Sexuality.” Critical Inquiry, vol. 14, no. 1, 1987, pp. 16–48. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/1343570. DeVun, Leah. "Heavenly hermaphrodites: sexual difference at the beginning and end of time." postmedieval 9 (2018): 132-146. “Eddie Izzard on E! News Daily May 2000.” Edited by EddieIzzardRarities, YouTube, YouTube, 17 Jan. 2010, www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwGFPGtgQoo. “Eddie Izzard Announces Name She’s Wanted to Use since Age 10, Saying ‘I’m Going to Be Suzy.’” Sky News, Sky, 7 Mar. 2023, news.sky.com/story/eddie-izzard-announces-name-shes-wanted-to-use-since-age-10-saying-im-going-to-be-suzy-12827931#:~:text=Comedian%20and%20aspiring%20politician%20Eddie,being%20a%20%22superhero%20thing%22. “The Female Pirates (From an Old Print) [Anne Bonny, 1698-1782, and Mary Read, c. 1695-1721] .” Edited by National Maritime Museum, Royal Museums Greenwich, Feb. 2022, www.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/rmgc-object-157040. Fitzpatrick, Katie. “Manchester Drag Queen Surprises Coaches on the Voice UK.” Manchester Evening News, 17 Jan. 2016, www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/tv/the-voice-bbc-boy-george-10737388. Gilbey, Ryan. “Rocky Horror’s Richard O’Brien: ‘I Should Be Dead. I’ve Had an Excessive Lifestyle.’” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 5 Nov. 2020, www.theguardian.com/stage/2020/nov/05/richard-obrien-interview-rocky-horror-trans-crack-stroke-70s. Gomolka, C. J. “Lost in (trans)lation: The misread body of Herculine Barbin.” Synthesis: An Anglophone Journal of Comparative Literary Studies, no. 4, 1 May 2012, pp. 38–49, https://doi.org/10.12681/syn.17283. Harding, James (1987). The Rocky Horror Show Book. Sidgwick & Jackson. pp. 22–23. Heffron, Yaǧmur. “Inana/Ištar (Goddess).” Ancient Mesopotamian Gods and Goddesses, 2019, oracc.museum.upenn.edu/amgg/listofdeities/inanaitar/. IMDb. “Richard O’Brien | Actor, Writer, Music Department.” IMDb, IMDb.com, www.imdb.com/name/nm0639782/. Accessed 5 Feb. 2024. IMDb. “Eddie Izzard | Actor, Producer, Writer.” IMDb, IMDb.com, www.imdb.com/name/nm0412850/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0_tt_2_nm_6_q_Izzard. Accessed 5 Mar. 2024. “Internet Medieval Sourcebook: The Questioning of Eleanor Rykener (Also Known as John), A Cross-Dressing Prostitute, 1395.” Edited by Paul Halsall, Fordham University, May 1998, sourcebooks.fordham.edu/source/1395rykener.asp. “Klinefelter Syndrome.” NHS, NHS, www.nhs.uk/conditions/klinefelters-syndrome/#:~:text=Usually%2C%20a%20female%20baby%20has,Y%20chromosome%20denotes%20male%20sex. Accessed 13 Oct. 2023. Krappe, Alexander H. "The Bearded Venus." Folklore 56.4 (1945): 325-335. Parashar, Arthur. “Suzy Eddie Izzard Loses Bid to Be Labour’s Candidate for Brighton Pavilion at next General Election - the Trans Comedian’s Second Failed Attempt to Stand as MP.” Daily Mail Online, Associated Newspapers, 18 Dec. 2023, www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12874007/Eddie-Izzard-loses-bid-Labours-candidate-Brighton-Pavilion.html. Plato. “The Symposium Section 5: 189c - 193e.” Edited by SparkNotes, SparkNotes, SparkNotes, www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/symposium/section6/. Accessed 12 Sept. 2023. TalkTV. “Suzy Eddie Izzard: ‘It’s Suzy or Eddie and You Can Choose... No One Can Make a Mistake.’” YouTube, YouTube, 23 Mar. 2023, www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvaLUmUqsio. Sale, William. “Aphrodite in the Theogony.” Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, vol. 92, 1961, pp. 508–21. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/283834. Simon, Rebecca. “Anne Bonny and Mary Read: The Deadly Female Pirate Duo.” History Revealed Magazine, Dec. 2021, https://www.historyextra.com/period/stuart/anne-bonny-mary-read-female-pirates-lives-crimes/. Accessed 12 Sept. 2023. Talbot, Mary Ann. "The Life and Surprising Adventures of Mary Ann Talbot, in the Name of John Taylor (1809)." Faculty Publications, UNL Libraries (2006): 32. Tassell , Nige. “Chevalièr d’Éon: The Tale of an 18th-Century Gender Non-Conforming Spy.” History Revealed Magazine, Aug. 2023, https://www.historyextra.com/period/georgian/chevalier-deon-who-gender-non-conforming-spy/. Accessed 10 Sept. 2023. “Winners Announced for UK Theatre Awards 2022.” Winners Announced for UK Theatre Awards 2022 - UK Theatre, 2022, web.archive.org/web/20221121195452/https://uktheatre.org/theatre-industry/news/winners-announced-for-uk-theatre-awards-2022/. Xeravits, Géza G., editor. Religion and Female Body in Ancient Judaism and Its Environments. Walter de Gruyter, 2015, Google Books, https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Religion_and_Female_Body_in_Ancient_Juda/9hSsCAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=info:5oOR9extnA0J:scholar.google.com/&pg=PA3&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false.

It’s that time of the year where romance is in the air (or maybe it isn’t) and the perfect opportunity to watch a classic rom-com presents itself. Please excuse me as I indulge myself; romantic comedies happen to be my favourite film genre, so interesting to me that I wrote my undergraduate dissertation about 1990’s rom-coms. Did I do it as an excuse to rewatch some (not-so-guilty) guilty pleasures? Yes. But did I also want to examine the representations of women, sexuality and feminist discourse in these surprisingly complex films? Absolutely. We all know the well-versed story of girl meets boy, they fall in love, face adversity, overcome said adversity, and live happily ever after. The end. The romantic comedy is “a genre that has continually been vilified for its poor artistic quality”, and the fact that, even today, it is regarded with contempt signals the low cultural value society places upon women’s interests. So the various mechanisms and ideologies that are in place within the rom-com, influencing perceptions of womanhood and romance, are not always highlighted within mainstream discourse of these films. On the face of it, most of them depict women falling hopelessly in love, sacrificing themselves or their dreams in the pursuit of a husband, which doesn’t seem very 'feminist'. At a time where pop culture was promoting Girl Power, romantic comedies were proposing a more nostalgic, traditional and hegemonic version of womanhood. Film scholars Steve Neale and Tamar Jeffers McDonald, building on Neale’s work, have coined this period of rom-coms as ‘new romances’ or ‘neo-traditional romances’, noting conventions of conservatism in the films of this time. I also suggest that there is a distinction to be made between the ‘rom-com’ and the ‘chick-flick’; the latter is associated with “a return to femininity, the primacy of romantic attachments, girlpower, a focus on female pleasure and […] the value of consumer culture and girlie goods[…]”, while the new romance is focused entirely on securing the most traditional and modest ending for its characters. Notably, the rise of ‘postfeminism’ emerged around this time. Purporting to offer women choice over the way they lead their lives and citing the redundancy of feminism now that gender equality has supposedly been achieved, postfeminism often  promotes conservative life choices for women, reinforcing gender expectations rather than dismantling them. In these new romances women are encouraged to hold a complex and contradictory position; pursuing success in both their professional and personal lives, which inevitably results in unequal roles in relationships and failure in not meeting society’s expectations. It is important to note that the romantic comedies of this time, and postfeminism more generally, favour white, heterosexual, middle-class women, therefore failing to recognise diversity and disparity within womens’ experiences which means that this version of womanhood is not accessible to all. If you couldn’t already tell, I’m not exactly the biggest believer in postfeminism’s promise that women can have it all. The neo-traditional rom-coms embody the postfeminist inclination for conservatism and conventional femininity; women are encouraged to seek out romance, yet be virtuous, to view marriage as the pinnacle of life, but not appear desperate, and above all strive for a life of domestic bliss. Women enjoy these films and identify with their characters, yet the female representations are not necessarily empowering nor aligned with contemporary feminist thought. But I, and millions of others, still love classic rom-coms like Sleepless In Seattle or Notting Hill, and they don’t necessarily empower women and their life choices. There must be something at work within these films for them to have experienced such prolonged popularity, but is it at the expense of feminist principles? Sex (or a lack of) in neo-traditional rom-coms The de-emphasis of sex is central in the romantic comedies from this period, presenting women who are less interested in having sexual, physically-fulfilling relationships than they are in forming an emotional connection with ‘the one’. The ‘neo-traditional’ woman possesses a certain innocence and conservatism as she desires romance, a husband and family just as much as, if not more than, individual success in life. In You’ve Got Mail, when asked about having ‘cyber-sex’ with her chatroom friend ‘NYC152’, Kathleen (Meg Ryan) primly responds, “it’s not like that”, insinuating that the concept is shocking, or simply too sexy to be something she engages with. Apart from Pretty Woman’s Vivian (a sex worker), the new romance woman is a desexualised being. The neo-traditional woman’s sexuality (her heterosexuality) is inherently foregrounded by the genre, which showcases the perceived stability and romantic supremacy of heterosexual relationships, but her body is never a site of sex appeal. Women are therefore rewarded with a relationship and success in return for enacting post-feminism’s conservative version of femininity. Casual dating is not relevant to these women, instead abstinence is framed as the responsible, ‘right’ decision before meeting ‘the one’. This sets an expectation for women to be selective in their choice of romantic or sexual partner if they want to be completely romantically fulfilled. Postfeminist ideals of ‘having it all’ are pertinent to every aspect of women’s lives, and these rom-coms aid in creating that precedent. Of course, an exception to this trope is rom-com icon Bridget Jones (Reneé Zellweger). She engages first in a lustful, thrilling love affair with her boss  Daniel Cleaver (Hugh Grant) and later a passionate, albeit tumultuous, relationship with Mark Darcy (Colin Firth). She enjoys her independence as a modern woman, free to enjoy sex and casual dating, but also acknowledges that she still lives under the patriarchy. In order to feel feminine and attractive she attempts to quit smoking and lose weight; she painfully waxes, shaves and plucks her body hair and dreads the prospect of becoming a spinster, despite being just thirty. While Bridget does represent a new kind of womanhood for the new millennium, she also represents the postfeminist hangover from the 1990s, believing that the conventions of traditional femininity will bring her lifelong happiness in the form of a man who loves her. Since the film’s release almost 25 years ago, it has been debated online and in academia alike whether Bridget Jones’s Diary is a piece of feminist work. I don’t think this film seeks to radically empower women and I don’t see Bridget as the ultimate feminist icon. But what she represents, a simultaneous awareness of the patriarchy yet conformity to its gender expectations, is something most women can relate to. For that reason, Bridget represents a very real and sympathetic version of womanhood and femininity which I believe makes her at the very least a female icon. She isn’t perfect, but neither is the woman watching her at home. New romance women in the workplace While women in new romances are depicted as professionally successful, as Diane Negra notes, these films “offset the threat of the urban ‘career woman’ by establishing her use of workplace resources as a means in the pursuit of romance”, constructing a retrograde image of modern working women. In Sleepless In Seattle Annie (Meg Ryan) uses her journalist resources to locate Sam (Tom Hanks) after hearing him on the radio, while Vivian accidentally finds love working as Edward’s prostitute in Pretty Woman. Bridget Jones has a flirty (pretty inappropriate) workplace relationship with her boss, which would certainly bring up some red flags and an email to HR in our current society. Kathleen’s first face-to-face meeting with Joe (Tom Hanks) in You’ve Got Mail is in her independent bookstore, ‘The Shop Around the Corner’. Throughout the film they shift from acquaintances, to rivals in the book-selling business, and eventually become lovers, connecting Kathleen’s career to the romantic plot. So while the women in neo-traditional rom-coms do not necessarily enter their professions seeking romance, the continuous use of this narrative reinforces the representation of women not taking their work seriously, encouraging their regression out of the workplace and into domestic roles. This rejection of the workplace in the pursuit of love directly challenges the matter of ‘having it all’ that I mentioned earlier. Under postfeminist thought, women are expected to balance a high-flying career, a fulfilling romantic relationship and maintenance of rigorous beauty standards. These romantic comedies profess to depict women embodying the harmonious achievement of all three of these categories by the end of the film with their happy endings. But what they actually portray is the struggle to attain this equilibrium; in many of these films the female protagonist is required to sacrifice an element of herself in order to reach the conservative postfeminist pinnacle of a heterosexual relationship. In Sleepless In Seattle, Annie is opposed to the idea of destiny at the beginning of the film, however once she hears Sam’s voice on the radio one night she suddenly believes that she belongs with this man she has never met. She embodies a simultaneous dichotomy of passive follower of fate and active believer in her own choices as the film sees Annie forgo her principles (dismissing destiny) and  search to find the mysterious man to whom she is inexplicably drawn. This demonstrates how, under the guise of postfeminist ‘choice’, destiny presents women with “well-regulated liberty” rather than complete free will. In the neo-traditional rom-com, postfeminism is ideologically linked with the concept of destiny; what is framed as a magical alignment of soul mates in actuality justifies the reinstatement of women in a position of domesticity. Similarly, in You’ve Got Mail, Kathleen renounces her career, personal judgement and independence after Joe (her love interest) puts her out of business and conceals the truth about knowing her true identity on an over-thirties’ chatroom. Bridget Jones also feels compelled to leave her desirable publishing job because of her love interest. Although it is her decision to leave the publishing firm, the uncomfortable position Daniel puts her in (by having begun a relationship with someone he is in charge of’ and subsequently cheating on her) speaks to the choices modern women have to navigate, prioritising a relationship over a career, which confirms the difficulty of truly being able to have it all. She ultimately quits because of a man who makes her feel desperate and embarrassed. Crucially, in many of the romantic relationships portrayed in the neo-traditional rom-coms their foundations are built upon duplicity and power imbalance between man and woman. Joe knows Kathleen’s online identity, closes her bookstore, and still romantically pursues her, while Edward in Pretty Woman is aware of his growing feelings for Vivian and continues to engage in their relationship, despite its transactional nature. Vivian and Kathleen are not equal to Edward and Joe in terms of knowledge, power or economic standing during the foundational moments of their relationships, thus setting a precedent for the behaviours and power dynamic that women should expect from aspirational on-screen relationships. This simply reiterates postfeminism’s roots in conservative heterosexual identity. These films are able to construct romance from male agency and female passivity by depicting such relationships with ‘happily ever afters’ and the promise of a stable future in the form of blissful domesticity. Interestingly, Anna (Julia Roberts) in Notting Hill subverts this trend. She does not forfeit any part of herself or lifestyle, instead ending up with a more desirable way of life than she has at the beginning of the film. Through gaining a relationship with William (Hugh Grant), Anna is able to maintain an acting career, husband, children and fame, but only because he is the one to devote his life to her, rather than her to him. But it is clear that Anna is only able to achieve this position as the epitome of the postfeminist woman because of her social standing as a wealthy white woman. So while she represents something idealistic for the postfeminist rom-com, she is not necessarily an example of modern intersectional feminism. Feminists vs rom-coms? The neo-traditional romantic comedies can be held partially responsible for maintaining the perception of romance and women’s popular entertainment as trashy or outdated; by guiding their female characters into positions of passivity these films represent typical conservative postfeminism. Therefore the relevance of their representations of womanhood is considered limited to contemporary women. Despite this, real women do relate to the neo-traditional romantic comedies. Their depictions of postfeminist struggle (balancing feminism, traditional femininity, and individuality) are familiar to all women, demonstrating that these rom-coms are not totally incorrect in their representations. Enjoying neo-traditional rom-coms does not necessitate an absolute agreement with the types of romance, relationships and female representations that these films propose. Perhaps, the ‘feminist’ thing to do is to celebrate these films on the basis that their cultural value is overlooked and sneered at; the reclamation of women’s popular entertainment (made by and for women) can be empowering in its own right. In boxing things into binary, opposed categories of ‘feminist’ and ‘not feminist’ we are at risk of losing the nuance and contradictions of being not only women, but simply human. Just as these romantic comedies are not perfect or consistent in their ‘feminist’ stance, people are flawed and complicated. It would be wrong to say that the rom-coms of this era are models of perfectly enacted feminism (whatever that may be); but why must everything a woman enjoys be dissected and proved ‘worthy’? Why can’t I be a feminist while also enjoying something romantic, nostalgic and entertaining? The people who watch these films form their own interpretations of the representations of women, romance and society depicted on-screen from their own experiences. To quote Michele Schreiber, it is wrong “to pigeonhole these films and [...] ignore the many complex issues with which they engage, and to assume that women spectators cannot find a variety of pleasures in the same texts that they simultaneously understand to be limited in their representations of women’s choices.” This is where I stand with my enjoyment of rom-coms. Like Schreiber says, I trust my judgement and media literacy to recognise that the era in which some of my favourite films were made differs from the world I live in today. If anything, it is fascinating to study how certain attitudes and conversations around topics like body image, patriarchy and femininity have evolved over thirty years. I simply enjoy these films for the comfort and entertainment value that they offer, and many women love them for this reason. With iconic moments, brilliant acting partnerships (hello, Hugh Grant and Julia Roberts), and heartwarming stories, anyone can find something to enjoy about romantic comedies. So the verdict is: yes, you can love rom-coms and still be a feminist. But maybe I’m biased… Sources Ferriss, Suzanne and Mallory Young, Introduction: chick flicks and chick culture’ in Chick Flicks: Contemporary Women at the Movies, ed. by Suzanne Ferriss and Mallory Young (New York, Routledge, 2007), pp. 1-25 Guilluy, Alice, “Guilty Pleasures”- European Audiences and Contemporary Hollywood Romantic Comedy (London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2021) McDonald, Tamar Jeffers, Romantic Comedy: Boy Meets Girl Meets Genre (London: Wallflower Press, 2007) McRobbie, Angela, ‘Postfeminism and and Popular Culture: Bridget Jones and The New Gender Regime’, in Interrogating Postfeminism: Gender and the Politics of Popular Culture, ed. by Yvonne Tasker and Diane Negra (North Carolina: Duke University Press, 2007), pp. 27-39 Neale, Steve, ‘The Big Romance or Something Wild?: Romantic Comedy Today’, Screen, vol. 33.3 (1992), 284-299 Negra, Diane, What A Girl Wants?: Fantasizing the Reclamation of Self in Postfeminism (Abingdon: Taylor & Francis Group, 2008) Schreiber, Michele, American Postfeminist Cinema: Women, Romance and Contemporary Culture (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2014) Filmography Bridget Jones’s Diary, dir. by Sharon Maguire (Universal Pictures, 2001) Notting Hill, dir. by Roger Michell (Universal Pictures, 1999) Pretty Woman, dir. by Garry Marshall (Buena Vista Pictures Distribution, 1990) Sleepless In Seattle, dir. by Nora Ephron (TriStar Pictures, 1993) You’ve Got Mail, dir. by Nora Ephron (Warner Bros., 1998)

In February, the UK celebrates LGBT+ History Month. Different from June’s Pride Month, LGBT+ History Month focuses on education around and freedom for queer identities, relationships and families. The month-long event was founded by an organisation called SchoolsOut UK, an LGBT+ educational charity. SchoolsOut UK announced the commemoration of LGBT+ History Month in 2004. February 2005 was the first year of the annual event, the second anniversary of the repeal of Section 28. Section, or Clause 28 prohibited the education of anything perceived as LGBT+ in schools and libraries, as well as restricting funding to LGBT+ social causes. To mark this year’s LGBT+ History Month, this short article explores the causes, passage and eventual repeal of the act, alongside  the impact it has on LGBT+ education in the UK to this day. Discussions of queer history typically focus on the 1969 Stonewall Riots and the global impacts which followed. In the UK: The 1964 Wolfenden Report, the 1972 Sexual Offences Act and 2013’s Marriage Act often remain the focus - whilst all important, an often overlooked, yet continually damaging piece of anti-LGBT+ UK legislature was the 1988 passage of Section, or Clause 28.  The first piece of legislature in Britain to directly name homosexuality as a disease. Introduced by the Conservative Thatcher Government in 1986, Section 28 was a small line in the 1988 Local Government Act which stated that: ‘A Local Authority shall not: (a) intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality; (b) promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship Nothing above shall be taken to prohibit the doing of anything for the purpose of treating or preventing the spread of disease.’ Such censorship can be understood as a response to two factors. The HIV epidemic and a book. Firstly, let us discuss the impact of the HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus) epidemic on British homophobia. The first known case of HIV in Britain occurred in 1981 in a 49-year-old gay man who frequently travelled to Florida. By 1985 HIV was listed as the cause of death of 50 individuals, and by 1987 over 1000 people were diagnosed. HIV had likely been transmitted from chimpanzees to humans sometime in the mid-nineteenth century thanks to humans in Africa hunting the animals for sport. The disease spread through Africa but it wasn’t until it became a problem in the USA in the early 1970s that popular panic set in worldwide. HIV is a (currently) incurable disease which can be spread through an exchange of bodily fluids. AIDS (Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome) is often grouped into discussions of HIV, for context, AIDS is the last and most aggressive stage of the disease.  If you are HIV positive you are advised to always use condoms, as sex, both anal and vaginal, is historically the most common way in which the disease spreads. It is also spread through shared needles or syringes and other equipment used for drug taking. It is not a ‘gay disease’ and does not specifically affect homosexual people, heterosexual people were diagnosed during the height of the epidemic, and they continue to be affected by HIV. However, the number of gay men diagnosed with and dying from HIV and AIDS throughout the 1980s-1990s was disproportionate. The reason HIV diagnoses were more common in homosexual individuals is largely because although any penetrative sex can spread the disease, transmission via anal sex is easier; The walls of the rectum are thinner than those of the vagina. As most HIV patients and victims were gay men; fear and hatred towards the community mounted. This is demonstrated by surveys conducted by the British Social Attitude. These show that in 1983, approximately 50% of Brits thought that “sexual relations between two adults of the same sex” were “always wrong”. By 1987 as the epidemic picked up, the figure had risen to 64%. Sex between two consenting men over the age of 21 was  decriminalised in 1967, under the Sexual Offences Act. The age of consent for heterosexual sex was 16, a figure that would not be matched for homosexual sex for almost forty years. Despite decriminalisation, homosexuality continued to be demonised by politicians and the press. An onslaught of deaths seemingly linked to what was still commonly thought of as degenerative behaviour was too good to be true, as public fear set in, reports of a ‘gay disease’ sold papers. Common understanding of homosexuality was fairly reductive by today’s standards and people were concerned that if homosexuality was ‘taught’ then the disease would be spread further. Secondly, the book Jenny Lives with Eric & Martin was published by Danish author Susanne Bösche in 1983. Bösche’s book featured a young girl called Jenny, her father, and his boyfriend, looking to educate children about different types of families. Looking back in 2024 this is a lovely idea to normalise non-heteronormative families to young children. In 1983, the existence of homosexuality near children was blasphemous. When, in 1986 the book was reported to be on display in a library of a London primary school within a Labour Party Authority, public panic regarding ‘exposing’ children to homosexuality grew. The Education Secretary stated that the book was ‘propaganda’ and the Thatcher Government suddenly had an opportunity to attack the community. Concerns about the so-called “promotion” of homosexuality were already rife, but these two events in quick succession added hysterical fuel to the homophobic fire. A bill was first introduced in 1986, though it couldn’t get through the House of Commons due to the 1987 general election. Margaret Thatcher publicly supported the bill in her campaign for re-election, using this public fear of homosexuality to shore up both her own and the party’s popularity in the election. At a Conservative Party conference she argued that children were being “cheated of a sound start in life” due to being “taught they have an inalienable right to be gay”. Support for the Act was not restricted to the Tories, however, with Labour Party opposition also supporting the passage of the act. The Labour party does not believe that councils or schools should promote homosexuality and I hope that no one in the Committee has any doubt about that [Local Government Bill, Standing Committee A, 8 December 1987, c1211]. – Dr Cunningham Section 28 censored LGBT+ identities, families, relationships and existences. The Clause specifically targeted areas relating to children, such as schools and public libraries. However, bookshops were also encouraged not to sell LGBT+ literature, and council funds which had been directed to LGBT+ youth support, or any funding towards media which included same-sex relationships was cut. LGBT+ groups immediately came out (pardon the pun) to protest the passage of the Act. Perhaps most famously, in January 1988 during a public broadcast debating the act, Sir Ian McKellen inadvertently came out as gay live on air at 48 years old. A year later in 1989, McKellen co-founded the LGBT+ charity Stonewall. (The archive broadcast is linked at the bottom of this article and I recommend listening, but please be aware that the presenter is arguing for the Act, and McKellen is, as stated, outed without his own intention. This may be difficult to listen to so please only do so if you feel able.) A lack of education on homosexuality led to an immediate increase in homophobic prejudice, bullying, assaults, and violence. The Act justified the demonisation of LGBT+ topics, communities and individuals, and the British tabloids were unsurprisingly quick to jump on the scare tactics. Research conducted by Stonewall in 2017 shows that 52% of British teenagers had heard homophobic slurs in schools. It is thanks to this Act that several misconceptions regarding how HIV and AIDs were a ‘gay disease’ persist in public memory. For example, there are still popular misconceptions about the disease being exclusively homosexual, other popular fears include that it can be shared through food, or touch. As early as 1985 media was produced in the USA which attempted to address the stigma and fear concerning HIV diagnoses. However, there is a noticeable gap in British media until 2018 with the depiction of Freddie Mercury’s HIV diagnosis in Bohemian Rhapsody. Direct attention to the impact of the epidemic is evident  in the production of LGBT+ shows such as ITV’s It’s a Sin (2021), based on the real-life experiences of writer Russell T. Davies and his friends at the height of the epidemic. Examples of media like this are indicative that public interest has moved from discriminatory to empathetic. However the dates also demonstrate that fear of homosexuality and a reluctance to depict a human disaster which primarily affected queer individuals continued long after the repeal of the act in 2003. In face, in 2013 at least 50 schools still had policies in place which adhered to Section 28. The Act shaped the way a generation and beyond understood LGBT+ identities and issues, its effects still seen in how such issues are understood and taught today. The existence of this Act is problematic on several levels, that much has been established. Here I want to highlight the danger and the ignorance of this censorship. Under Section 28 the following could not be taught accurately, a significant impact of which is that large parts of LGBT+ history remain un-taught and under-researched. (This list is a short snippet and is not intended to be exhaustive.) Royal British History, namely Edward II, James VI & I and Queen Anne all had same-sex relationships during their reigns, which in all three cases were hugely significant to the trajectory of their political lives Alan Turing, the cryptanalysis of the Enigma machine, was chemically castrated in the years following the Second World War before dying by cyanide poisoning two weeks before his 42nd birthday after being found guilty of homosexuality Women in the military, especially those who served in the auxiliary forces in WW2 who often had secret relationships with each other, many joining the force to avoid heteronormative ideals all together English Literature/writers including Shakespeare, Oliver Wilde, Virginia Woolf, E.M. Forster, Walt Whitman and Audre Lorde. Ancient civilisations including Greece, Rome, and the Celts all had known and often celebrated same-sex relationships. In Greece, there was even an elite band within the Theban Army which consisted of 150 couples, 300 men. They were chosen and trusted because it was believed that each pair would rather die bravely for the other than allow himself to be seen as a coward by his beloved. They were undefeated from 371BCE – 338BCE. In Japanese history, in the pre-Meji period (800-1868 CE) same-sex relationships among men were considered an “honoured way of life … [that] in some respects even surpassed ancient Athens.” (Crompton, 412) Native American indigenous tribes mostly recognised at least four genders, if not more. Gender is also seen to be non-binary in Hindu Texts, a third gender is noted in the Manusmriti, a law code from approximately c.1250 BCE You may have noticed from this list that homophobia and censorship of same sex love emerge as Western Colonialism and Culture takes root. (A discussion of this nuance is important but overwhelming for this article. I recommend reading the articles listed below by María Lugones, “Heterosexualism and the Colonial / Modern Gender System”, and “The Coloniality of Gender”). By the end of the 1990s, support for the Act had waned. The HIV and AIDS epidemic had slowly begun to improve, consequently, so had public and political fear. In 1994 Conservative MP Edwina Currie introduced an amendment to the 1967 Sexual Offences Act to lower the age of consent for homosexual men to 16, in line with the age of consent for heterosexual individuals. While the act was rejected, the age of consent was lowered to 18. Crucially, Currie’s amendment had the support of then Shadow Secretary Tony Blair who stated that ‘a society that has learned, over time, racial and sexual equality can surely come to terms with equality of sexuality.’ From 1997, under Blair’s new Labour Government, efforts to change legislation were more successful. Labour MP Jack Straw was the Home Secretary for only two months in 1997 when he started to push for reform on LGBT+issues, notably around the age of consent. Part of Straw’s reasoning for this was clearly the upcoming publication of a report by the European Commission of Human Rights. Straw wanted to fix Britain’s homophobic legislation before it could be declared in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights. Despite his desire to pre-empt an issue, Straw’s support for ‘homosexual rights’ was not simply a proactive legal effort. To cut a long story short, Straw was successful in 2000, the bill was passed and in 2001 the law changed: the age of consent was 16. However, Section 28 still stood. Also in 2000, the Scottish Parliament voted to remove the Act from Scottish legislation 99 votes to 17. Whilst parliamentary support was not entirely unanimous (when is it in politics?) public support was fairly strong. Nicola Sturgeon, then first minister for Scotland, stated "A discriminatory and shameful piece of legislation that was imposed on Scotland by Westminster will today be repealed by the Scottish parliament ahead of other parts of the UK. That says something about the state of Scotland that we can all be proud of." Meanwhile, in Westminster, Tony Blair also brought a bill to parliament in an effort to repeal the Act. It was rejected by an alliance of Tory and Cross-benchers in the House of Lords. The Labour Government then retreated from the effort to protect themselves amid the general election. Whilst we can decry this cowardice, Blair’s re-elected government did return to the repeal. In January 2002 support for the repeal of Section 28 received backing from the unlikeliest of places, Tory Party Members. Section 28 was removed entirely from the British legal system in November 2003, but it was February 2003 that saw the abolition of the Act passed through Parliament. To mark this point of improving the education of LGBT+ issues and history, activist group Schools Out UK initiated the first LGBT+ History Month in February 2005, a concerted effort to correct almost two decades of direct censorship and centuries of criminalisation. The abolition of Section 28 was by no means the end of LGBT+ oppression in the UK but the removal of censorship has allowed for LGBT+ communities and individuals to establish themselves within a national identity, heading towards a normalisation of some sorts. Further Reading: ‘‘Coming Out Under Fire’: The Story of Gay and Lesbian Service Members’, National WW2 Museum, (25/06/2020), , [15/11/2023]. ‘18 November 2003: Section 28 Bites the Dust’, Stonewall, , [15/11/2023]. ‘1988: Clause 28 protest leaflet. Catalogue ref: FCO 82/1979’, The National Archives, (1988), , [31/12/2023]. ‘Lesbians in the twentieth century, 1900-1999, by Esther Newton and her students’, Out History, (2006), , [15/11/2023]. ‘Queer life during the Second World War’, NI War Memorial, < https://www.niwarmemorial.org/collections/blog/queer-life-during-the-second-world-war-1>, [15/11/2023]. ‘Scotland throws out section 28’, The Guardian, (22/06/2000), < https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/jun/22/kirstyscott>, [15/11/2023]. ‘Sexual Offences Act: 2003’, Legislation.Government, (2003), , [15/11/2023]. ‘Third Ear - Section 28’, BBC Archive, (27/01/1988), < https://www.bbc.co.uk/archive/third-ear--section-28/zbm4scw>, [31/12/2023]. “LGBT+ History Month”, SchoolsOut, https://lgbtplushistorymonth.co.uk/, [30/01/2024]. Carlick, Stephen, ‘From Sappho to Stonewall, and beyond: how fiction tells LGBTQ+ history’, Penguin Press, (01/06/2023), < https://www.penguin.co.uk/articles/2023/06/fiction-lgbtq-history-novels>, [31/12/2023]. Dunton, Mark, ‘Equality of sexuality: The age of consent’, The National Archives: Records and research, (23/02/2023), < https://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/equality-of-sexuality-the-age-of-consent/>, [31/12/2023]. Grierson, Jamie, ‘Tony Blair was warned repeal of anti-gay section 28 might harm election chances’, The Guardian, (19/07/2022), , [15/11/2023]. Hartley-Brewer, Julia, ‘Blair loses section 28 vote’, The Guardian, (25/07/2000), < https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/jul/25/education.politics>, [15/11/2023]. Lugones, Maria, ‘Heterosexualism and the Colonial / Modern Gender System’, Hypatia, Lugones, Maria, ‘The Coloniality of Gender’, In: Harcourt, W. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Gender and Development, (Palgrave Macmillan, London: 2016), < https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-38273-3_2>, [31/12/2023]. Mark, Joshua J. ‘Ten Ancient LGBTQ Facts You Need to Know’, World History Encyclopedia, (08/06/2021), < https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1774/ten-ancient-lgbtq-facts-you-need-to-know/>, [15/11/2023]. Pyper, Douglas, Tyler-Todd, Joe, ‘The 20th anniversary of the repeal of section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988’, House of Commons Library, (28/11/2023), < https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2023-0213/>, [15/11/2023]. Vol. 22, No. 1: Writing Against Heterosexism (Winter, 2007), pp. 186-209 (24 pages), , [31/12/2023]. Wakefield, Lily, Kelleher, Patrick, ‘The terrible, brutal history of Tory prime minister Margaret Thatcher’s homophobic Section 28’, PinkNews, (18/11/2022), , [15/11/2023].

Content warnings: bigotry, sexual abuse Glossary PostPomoHomo: 'Post-post-modern homosexuals' A movement of black gay artists, which inspired the likes of Deep Dickollective. Queer: Queer is a term used by those wanting to reject specific labels of romantic orientation, sexual orientation and/or gender identity. Intersectionality: the interconnected nature of social categorisations such as race, class, and gender, regarded as creating overlapping and interdependent systems of discrimination or disadvantage When talking about queerness and hip-hop, the conversation usually pivots between two very polarised time frames. There is the grim and disturbing vision of hip-hop’s past, when rappers dropped homophobic slurs in their rhymes like it was a joke, often intermingling their descriptions of queerness with violent and bigoted comments. Then, there is present-day hip-hop, where awareness of LGBTQ representation has become much more mainstream, while bigotry, at least to the extent to which it was seen in hip-hop’s earlier days, is frowned upon. With a number of charting hip-hop artists feeling safe enough to be open about their sexual orientations, there seems to have been some sort of turning point in the last ten years. This could be partially attributed to the political changes that have pathed the way for LGBTQ people to have more freedom, such as 2015’s Obergefell v. Hodges decision that guaranteed same-sex couples the right to get married in the USA. This article will focus on America’s hip-hop culture, where it all started in 70s New York, and where it still thrives following its 50th anniversary. This perceptibly sudden change in the way the industry (labels, charts, artists, distributors) has viewed queerness can also be felt through the different forms of artistic activism musicians have engaged in over the years. Frank Ocean’s coming out letter is treated as a touchstone for any article on this topic (including this article right here). I want to refrain from referring to contemporary artists, who happen to be queer, as “queer/gay/trans rap artists” or their genres as “queer hip-hop” precisely because of how mainstream and approachable these topics have become in recent times. Though this is definitely a welcome change, it has not arrived without criticism, even from LGBTQ listeners, who have problems with “performative sexuality.” There certainly are tracks, albums, and even artists who have dedicated queer themes with revolutionary goals. However, many artists today, such as Ocean, Lil Uzi Vert, Lil Nas X, Nicki Minaj and more have successfully incorporated themes of sexuality either into their mainstream song writing or their public personalities. No homo or Postpomohomo? It is a common belief that hip-hop as a whole has always been firmly anti-queer. In truth, hip-hop is not a monolithic entity, but a genre that can be tapped into by anyone with an awareness of the medium’s possibilities. Hip-hop is notorious for breaking down boundaries and being a revolutionary act of expression. Few art forms can channel righteous anger through easily accessible means as well as hip hop does. Kendrick Lamar, NWA, and Immortal Technique are but a few examples of politically engaged rappers that deliver punchy and radical lyrics. Equally, there is plenty of truth in the belief that much of hip-hop’s history is blighted by casual as well as downright aggressive homophobia. Kanye West, as crass as his public statements are now, in 2005 called against the use of homophobic remarks in hip-hop. “No homo” is one of the most tired ad-libs in all of hip-hop and even the cleanest rappers like Will Smith have anti-gay skeletons in their closet. Throughout hip-hop’s early days, queerness had only one form of expression and that was through underground artists like Deep Dickollective (stylised as D/DC). Sensational naming aside, this hip-hop group was founded upon postmodernist critique of heteronormativity and race theory. Their mission statement was to dismantle and reconstitute their intersectionality through lyricism that was often much more intellectual and engaging than what was played on hip-hop radio stations in the early 2000s. That their inspiration was drawn from niche political and poetic circles made no difference as they spoke to and for their own communities. Group members Tim’m West and Juba Kalamka first met at a screening of Tongues Untied, an experimental documentary film about black and gay love, in San Francisco’s Castro theatre. West suffered from both depression and AIDS. He found he could not talk about his experiences the way he wanted to, due to the hate he felt from the hip-hop community as well as the conflation of queerness with whiteness in the bay area at the time. When Phillip Atiga Goff joined the group, name was coined initially as a joke, a form of lexical blending of dick and collective, but it also was a way to create an empowering space for self expression, the way they saw women discuss erotica at the spoken word performances with which they were familiar. The final member to join was Ralowe Ampu and he brought his own experience in Marxist theory that provided further depth and intersectionality to their lyrics. D. Mark Wilson interviewed the group and analysed their lyrics, providing really important context for looking back at this group. Wilson surmised that the group do not rap for one identity group but address “the needs and concerns of many,” and that “if women, whites, and weirdos from around the world could rap,” then D/DC could be equally important for the changing perspectives within hip-hop. Wilson read Mariposa Prelube (another title that demonstrates the group’s social wit and humour) as a song that expands the dimensions of activism in hip-hop, a channel the group thought to be all too heteronormative. Mariposa, as explained by Juba, is a term from the Latino communities around D/DC that refers to effeminate gay men, typically as an insult. Wilson thought that if “n****” can be incorporated into hip-hop identity, then the same can be done with mariposa and queer.” The song certainly relishes in the word’s connotations, drawing allusions to the literal meaning of “butterfly” in Spanish, as the MCs imagine themselves coming out from cocoons or metamorphosing from caterpillars. Though the group only lasted eight years, they left an important blueprint and precedent behind, off which artists in the 2010s built. Case Study: Brockhampton "Brockhampton brings together a set of elements that at first seem disparate. They are gay, black, white, DIY, ambitious, all-inclusive, and would-be pop stars." This quote from Complex paints a desperately succinct picture of one of the most unique-sounding and chaotic musical acts in recent hip-hop history. Their inherently ‘queered’ sound exploded onto the indie rap scene, breaking rules on how hip-hop artists should sound and look, while their later commercial ventures came with problems relating to their off-stage issues as well as growing pains that came with working under a big label. It has been over a year since the self-professed boyband broke up and if there was one thing that remained consistent over their 12-year span, it was their radical approach to redefining hip-hop as queer. If D/DC wanted to dismantle and reconstitute, Brockhampton wanted to cradle this reconstituted whole and naturalise it. Several of their members are gay according to the band’s most prolific member Kevin Abstract, including himself. Their lyrics cover a broad range of themes and topics. Just on the album SATURATION II, the typically macho, flashy bars that aim to show-off and/or intimidate are heard with “I got my hand on an ounce, so now I got money servin’/ I just bought me a fifth and now I’m speedin’, swervin’.”These are reference to drugs and cars, emblematic of a cold appeal of life’s material wealth. Love, both for love’s sake and love as a revolutionary act against heteronormativity is most often sung by Abstract, such as in the following verse: "Why you always rap about bein' gay?" 'Cause not enough n****s rap and be gay! Where I come from, n****s get called "f*****" and killed So I'ma get head from a n**** right here And they can come and cut my hand off and, and my legs off and And I'ma still be a boss 'til my head gone, yeah. This refers to how he has faced discrimination both as a gay man in a homophobic society and as a rapper facing discrimination from the industry. There is a brutal contrast, particularly with the song's delivery in mind, between the slurs, which stresses the perceived uncanniness of gay rapping. The palpable tension between the two words draws an unsightly picture of the effort it takes to reconcile the intersectional pushback from the oppressive world a black gay man faces. Here lies the most striking similarity between Brockhampton and D/DC; representations of pluralised backgrounds and reclaiming slurs for art with wit and rhyme. Different visions of time both come up, too, through fondness or dread for the future and past (“All of my life in my past wanna haunt/ And my sight of the future begginin’ to taunt my ambition”). Religiosity and its clash with their lifestyles is also critical, as in “I speak in tongues and I arrive without a damn mention.” This refers to the Holy Spirit’s gift of being able to worship God in foreign languages, but this is cleverly interpolated into rap’s culture of getting “mentioned” and praised by your contemporaries. Abstract, however, does not get a mention, possibly due to his abnormal, anti-mainstream art and background. All these lyrics come from just one song on one album, but already show the deep intersectional substance contained within this band’s ethos. Each member brings something striking, something different to each track, sometimes bringing together disparate ideas such as very up-beat, flashy bars on wealth contrasted against a story of forlorn love. This is not even to mention the incredibly diverse production styles that the band has mastered, from horror-core on JUNKY to super poppy bangers like SUGAR, which featured the superstar Dua Lipa. The latter track’s original version (sans Dua) ended up being the band’s biggest commercial success, thanks to (and stop me if you’ve heard this before) a TikTok trend incorporating the song’s chorus into a dance routine. It charted high and shows just how mainstream such an odd-ball group can be. Granted, it wasn’t their most audacious or interesting song, but nevertheless proves that the efforts of the pioneers, such as D/DC, and contemporary artists can overcome those tired stereotypes of 'no-homo'. Brockhampton’s inclusive image was severely tarnished following allegations against one of their vocalists, Ameer Vann, that purported him to have engaged in sexual misconduct as well as having sexual relations with a minor. Though Vann denied these claims, he was quickly dropped from the roster. This, combined with another controversy that involved vocalist Dom McLennon revealing that Vann had been involved in a robbery done to a friend, severely hurt the band’s appeal. They never managed to reach the same highs as in the late 2010s and many fans stopped listening. Fans on online forums grappled over whether the actions of one member reflect the culture within the group as a whole. Some members, such as Kevin Abstract, were more keen than others to remain in contact with Vann, which was a topic discussed in the band's penultimate album, mostly a solo effort from Abstract, The Family. Queerness at large The 2010s saw the rise of other big names in hip-hop coming out as LGBTQ. His highest charting song, Lost, is about a heterosexual relationship (worth reiterating here that Frank is not a fan of strict labels on his sexuality), which is definitely surprising when many of his LGBTQ fans recall the playful, clever, and certainly homoerotic lyrics on Chanel as almost anthemic of queer representation in rap. My guy pretty like a girl, And he got fight stories to tell. I see both sides like Chanel. Ocean’s frequent collaborator Tyler, the Creator had a very different experience in coming out. In his early career years, Tyler came under a lot of fire for his use of slurs and offensive themes in his songs. However, in 2015, he called himself “gay as f***” in an interview with Rolling Stone. Like Ocean, he had never put it in plain text and often made remarks about his sexuality in comedic contexts. Many of his early public appearances and interviews were caked in irony, which meant comments on his sexuality were either interpreted as homophobic jokes or as dodged questions. In his later musical projects, he went on to be more honest and frank about his romantic past. Truth is, since a youth kid, thought it was a phase Thought it'd be like the phrase; "poof," gone But, it's still goin' on. Lil Nas X's expression of queerness through his music and public image is much different, as his music caters more to the mainstream and he came out publicly much sooner. Since then, fans and critics have retrospectively picked up on markers of a certain queer aesthetic within Old Town Road, his first big hit before publicly coming out. Industry Baby and its music video, as much as it is X embracing an intoxicatingly energetic camp aesthetic, it does blend subtle elements of heteronormativity through Jack Harlow’s feature, due to the latters lyrics and suave, lady's man persona. Again, some see this as a way to downplay the homosexual themes, but it could equally be a politically significant act of making the queer hip-hop star present a utopian vision of feeling totally incorporated into mainstream culture. Through the setting of a prison in the music video, a typically dangerously chauvinistic space, the artist managed to queer it and reclaim it. The ideas within the video are not totally original, but the approach to contextualising them on queer terms is very important for how hip-hop can represent queerness. There are, of course, plenty of factors that corrupt this idealistic vision. Discrimination in and through hip-hop is not a solved issue. In 2021, DaBaby made a string of disturbing comments at Rolling Loud festival that took aim at gay people, as well as those who suffer from AIDS. This caused a lot of backlash from the media and the public. The video released in response to this by DaBaby did little to soothe over the homophobic remarks, and his album release following those events made a number of allusions to the controversy, though the rapper seemed more concerned with reminding people how much money he lost from the debacle. I was at Rolling Loud, shuttin' down a whole damn show, tried to make me have a problem with gays Mixed up my words, made a n**** lose a whole thirty million, now, I'm back and I'ma say what I say. Nicki Minaj has faced backlash for potentially being guilty of queer-baiting, an act of exploiting queer aesthetics or audiences for commercial goals. Despite recently turning down a performance in Saudi Arabia to make a stand against the country's anti-LGBTQ laws, the rapper still faces accusations of her sexuality being a performance. It is important to remember, that while sexuality is part of these artists' public lives, due to the proliferation of lifestyle media and stories, it is also something deeply personal to each one of them, too. Nicki Minaj also faces discrimination on the grounds of her femininity, often portrayed as hyper-femininity through her music videos, which is part of the important intersecting fragments of what is normal and what is not in hip-hop. This echoes what D/DC saw in hip-hop's culture years ago, how people struggle to approach or accept multiple, intersecting levels of divergence from the norm. Kendrick Lamar’s recent album also came under scrutiny for the song Auntie Diaries. The song’s use of slurs split critic’s opinions on artistic liberty. You said, "Kendrick, ain't no room for contradiction To truly understand love, switch position 'F*****, f*****, f*****,' we can say it together But only if you let a white girl say 'N****'". In this song, Kendrick reflects on the changing perceptions of queerness amongst a largely heteronormative community: his home and his family. He lingers on religion, stereotypes, and the sometimes counter-logical lessons he has learned on what being politically correct means. The song ends on something of a paradox, delivered with bluntness that refers to an incident when he lets a white girl come up on his stage and sing along to a song that used the word “n****.” Wilson posed a similar rhetorical question, and it really comes down to whether hip-hop can accept the reality of queer oppression as much as black oppression. Both histories are unique, but also filled with analogues that can bridge the communities together, and allow those who share the two perspectives to amplify their voice. Reconstituted? From D/DC's foundations, to the mainstream appeal of queer superstars of hip-hop today, rappers seem to have found the formula for expressing sexuality. However, it is easy to take this evolution for granted. Both within the industry and within the audience, hate and bigotry is still disturbingly audible. Equally, queer rappers today may not have felt as safe today, or had the same outreach, were it not for the work of their predecessors. On a more optimistic note, it is a certainty that many other queer listeners, who tune in to hear the rhymes of Lil Nas X or the flows of Tyler, the Creator, will feel inspired to share their truth in the future, however weird or unspoken it may have been until then. Bibliography Baker, E. (2015). Two Insane Days on Tour With Tyler, the Creator. [online] Rolling Stone. Available at: https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/two-insane-days-on-tour-with-tyler-the-creator-233121/9/ [Accessed 10 Jan. 2024]. Chonin, N. (2001). Hip to homo-hop / Oakland’s D/DC fuses gay and black identities with eyebrow-raising rhyme. [online] SFGATE. Available at: https://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/article/Hip-to-homo-hop-Oakland-s-D-DC-fuses-gay-and-2839793.php [Accessed 10 Jan. 2024]. Coombes, H. (2019). Intersectionality 101: what is it and why is it important? [online] Womankind Worldwide. Available at: https://www.womankind.org.uk/intersectionality-101-what-is-it-and-why-is-it-important/ [Accessed 14 Jan. 2024]. Cotte, J. (2018). Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Brockhampton (But Were Afraid to Ask). [online] Complex. Available at: https://www.complex.com/music/a/jorgeicotte/brockhampton-explained [Accessed 10 Jan. 2024]. Wilson, D.M. (2007). Post-Pomo Hip-Hop Homos: Hip-Hop Art, Gay Rappers, and Social Change. Social Justice, [online] 34(1 (107)), pp.117–140. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/29768425.pdf?refreqid=fastly-default%3A7e078964f36b7dd47b0c3c6792079c1a&ab_segments=&origin=&initiator=&acceptTC=1 [Accessed 10 Jan. 2024]. X (formerly Twitter). (2024). Available at: https://twitter.com/tylerthecreator/status/587459235706900480?lang=en [Accessed 10 Jan. 2024]. Tumblr. (2024). frank ocean: Photo. [online] Available at: https://frankocean.tumblr.com/image/26473798723 [Accessed 10 Jan. 2024]. Stonewall. (2020). List of LGBTQ+ terms. [online] Available at: https://www.stonewall.org.uk/list-lgbtq-terms [Accessed 14 Jan. 2024].

The 2024 Calendar designed by our graphics team features artwork of 12 people and events in women's and queer history. Our writing team have researched and produced a series of articles to highlight our featured artwork further. Starting off with The 2017 Women's March, which happened across the world on the 21st January 2017. The start of a new year normally brings feelings of hope and optimism; unfortunately for women and people from marginalised groups in 2017 emotions were those of dread and concern as Donald Trump was inaugurated into office. Trump represented an administration seemingly hell bent on regressing the U.S back several decades, placing more control on women’s rights and their bodily autonomy. However, Teresa Shook, a grandmother from Hawaii, decided that this was a time for action, creating a Facebook group with friends inviting them to march on Washington in protest. After the invite was shared in the Pantsuit Nation group – a group supporting Hilary Clinton – news spread and sign ups for the March climbed into its thousands, with the March becoming an organised body. What followed was the organisation of a rally and March drawing numerous participants, dwarfing those at Trump’s inauguration the day before by about three times. The March, and its sister protests occurring in countries worldwide, saw a range of notable speakers, including Gloria Steinem, America Ferrerra, Janelle Monae, Bernie Sanders and Kamala Harris. Organisers stated that whilst the March was in no way an anti-Trump rally, its intention was to ‘send a bold message to our new administration on their first day in office, and to the world that women’s rights are human rights’.[1] The choice of words is deliberate: it echoes those of Hilary Clinton during a 1995 speech on women’s issues in Beijing. Indeed, Trump represented the antithesis of what Clinton’s administration would have been if she won, from the first female president to a president whose campaign promises included repealing the Affordable Care Act, defunding Planned Parenthood, and appointing U.S Supreme Court justices who were against abortion rights.[2] Attendants of the March on January 21st therefore marched against an administration that presented a threat to their rights and bodily autonomy. The Women’s March detailed its commitment in its uniting policies, marching for ending violence against women, reproductive rights, LGBTQ+ rights, worker’s rights, civil rights, disability rights, immigrant rights and environmental justice. Whilst this shows an inclusive, intersectional organisation, the foundations of some of these promises were not completely solid. The support of reproductive rights, therefore being a pro-choice march, was thrown into question when the anti-abortion group ‘New Wave Feminists’ were granted partnership status, a questionable decision by the March’s organisers when Planned Parenthood was one of the premier partners of the March. New Wave Feminists were removed as a partner after their involvement was publicised in the American magazine The Atlantic. Whilst this showed organisers had recognised the contradiction of having both pro-life and pro-choice organisations as partners, their initial granting of partnership status to New Wave Feminists throws their fight for reproductive rights into question. The March also faced questions over their diversity at the beginning as it was mainly formed of white women. However, this was quickly amended by co-founder Vanessa Wruble who brought in women of colour to serve as national co-chairs, such as the social justice advocate Tamika Mallory, ensuring the organisation of the march going forward was informed with diversity in mind. A major legacy of the Women’s March in 2017 is that of the Pussyhat Project. Created by Krista Suh and Jayna Zwieman, the idea was to create something women could physically see and hold – a material symbol of their frustration towards the Trump administration. The idea behind the project name and design of the hats are obvious, reclaiming the word ‘pussy’ against Trump who in 2005 had abused the word, stating he could ‘grab’ any woman ‘by the pussy’.[3] The impact the hats had upon the Women’s March and following marches was immense, with shortages of pink knitting yarn (the colour of the hats) being reported across the U.S due to so many being made. Many were worn by participants to represent those who could not attend, displaying their solidarity with the march despite their lack of physical presence. Whilst some activists argued the hats were too cutesy of a symbol to encapsulate the frustration and fear women felt about Trump’s presidency, Suh and Zweiman stated they were conversation starters, and refused the notion that a symbol of resistance had to be ‘plain’ or ‘serious’.[4] They were correct, the hats simple and bright design – easy to make and distribute – allowed women to unite in their protests and ensured a legacy of the Women’s March years later. Indeed, the fact that the Pussyhats are so prominent of an image allowed their integration into other parts of society - they can now be found worn on fashion runways and displayed in museums. They  became a continuing symbol of the Women’s March and feminist activism, showing the success in creating a simple material symbol to get a message across. Seven years after the first Women’s March in 2017, women’s rights and their concern over their bodily autonomy remains. The overturning of Roe v Wade by the Supreme Court a year ago serves as a prime example, with many women in America no longer being able to access abortions. Whilst Trump may not be in office anymore therefore, the legacy of the mainstream misogyny his administration perpetuated and its attempt to control women’s bodies lives on. However, what also remains is women’s fight to resist, as organisers of the Women’s March ensured the momentum of the rally didn’t slow down after 2017. After January 21st, the organisation published their campaign ‘10 Actions for the First 100 Days’ which encouraged local, small acts of activism to keep the momentum going. In October 2017, Wruble decided to bring organisers of the many nationwide Women’s Marches into a national coalition under the name ‘March On’. The organisation’s focus was to harness the energy of the original marches to ‘march’ voters to polling stations for the November 2018 midterms. The work of those behind the Women’s March has therefore continued, further evidenced by the organisation's website which shows a timeline of their work supporting women and marginalised communities. The momentum of the original Women’s March has clearly not slowed down, so whilst women’s rights to their own bodies may still be up for debate in many states, the fight to resist these archaic attempts persists. Further Reading: ‘Our Vision’, Women’s March (2023) https://www.womensmarch.com/about-us [Accessed 20 November 2023] Wendy L. Wilson, ‘Women Marching for Justice in a New Era: A Chat with Activist Tamika Mallory’, Ebony (2017) https://web.archive.org/web/20170122172604/http://www.ebony.com/news-views/tamika-mallory-womens-march-interview#ixzz4W8C7zxNe [Accessed 20 November 2023] The Pussyhat Project (2023) https://www.pussyhatproject.com/ [Accessed 20 November 2023] [1] Emily Crockett, ‘The “Women’s March on Washington,” explained’, Vox (2017) https://www.vox.com/identities/2016/11/21/13651804/women-march-washington-trump-inauguration [Accessed 18 November 2023] [2] Kristen Jordan Shamus, ‘Pussyhat Project is sweeping nation ahead of Women’s March on Washington’, USA News Today (2017) https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/01/14/pink-cat-ear-hats-sweeping-nation-ahead-womens-march/96584374/ [Accessed 18 November 2023] [3] ‘Transcript: Donald Trump’s Taped Comments About Women’, New York Times (2023) https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/us/donald-trump-tape-transcript.html [Accessed 18 November 2023] [4] Mattie Kahn, ‘The Pussyhat Is an Imperfect, Powerful Feminist Symbol That Thousands Will Be Wearing This Weekend in DC’, Elle (2017) https://www.elle.com/culture/career-politics/news/a42152/pussyhat-project-knit-protest/ [Accessed 20 November 2023]

Glossary Agnatic Primogeniture: inheritance can only pass through the male line. There are different versions of this, however, this primarily means that women cannot inherit, nor can the right of succession be passed through their familial line. Cognatic Primogeniture: the first born male child will be the first in the line of succession (heir apparent), if there are no male children, then the first born female child will be first (heir presumptive) and they will be displaced if a male child is born. Absolute Primogeniture: the first born or eldest surviving child will inherit regardless of gender. Heir Apparent: denotes the first in line to inherit, they cannot be displaced Heir Presumptive: denotes the first in line to inherit, they can be displaced, e.g. by a male child. Salic Law: A type of Agnatic Primogeniture in which inheritance could not pass to women in any circumstances, including to male children via women’s lines. Known to each other as Lilibet and Daisy, Queen Elizabeth II and Queen Margrethe II had been the only two Queen Regnants in Europe since Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands abdicated in 2013. With Margrethe’s decision to abdicate on the 14th of January 2024, the 52nd anniversary of her accession, as announced in her 2023 New Year’s Eve address, Europe, and the world, ceases to have a reigning Queen. Queenship is a complex and difficult concept to study from a historical perspective and cannot be defined solely within the parameters that it is typically considered. It is often grouped with studies of women’s history more broadly, in ways that studies of kings are not grouped with ‘men’s studies’. This may be attributable to how ‘queenship’ as a concept is defined in studies of historical queens remains problematic. The word ‘queen’ is used to denote a ‘regnant’ (someone who rules in their own right), a ‘regent’ (someone who rules on behalf of another), a ‘consort’ (the wife of a king), a woman who holds similar or equivalent authority (such as an Empress, Pharoah or other leader), and the term ‘queen’ has developed another definition in contemporary LGBT slang. When we use the word ‘queen’ uniformly for all these definitions, even with their secondary definitions, it makes a study of what ‘queenship’ is, how it has developed and what it has meant through history incredibly difficult. This article asks what does ‘queenship’ mean in the twenty-first century? (I will note here that I focus on European Royal histories and so am primarily relating this discussion to Europe). Historically and still by definition, ‘monarchy’ is the political system through which an individual rules autonomously as sovereign, usually achieving her position via hereditary means. Most monarchies today have minimal actual authority and are heads of state almost entirely in name only.  As we move into a world without these women as queens, I ask what made them so significant, and how can they be used to define ‘modern queenship’? The modern European monarch is decorative, a piece of national tradition and nostalgia whilst being effectively harmless. Regardless of your political view on modern monarchies, these families, and the institutions they are a part of maintain a significant place in the cultural identity of the nations they preside over. In Britain fascination with royalty is clear in the popularity of historic palaces as tourist attractions, period dramas which focus on the soap opera-like history of the monarchy and a borderline psychotic national obsession with the likes of Harry and Meghan, Kate and William and Princess Diana. Furthermore, eighteen months after her death, Elizabeth II continues to lead polls of the most popular British Royal at 75%. King Charles III placed sixth, at 51%, after Zara Phillips, Catherine, Princess of Wales, Princess Anne and Prince William. Furthermore, since Elizabeth’s death in September 2022 support for a British monarchy has dropped from a 38% positive rating to only 29% as of April 2023, and approximately 62% of Brits currently think that we should continue to have a monarchy whereas at the end of Elizabeth’s life this figure sat at 67%. More indicative of Elizabeth’s importance to the popularity of the British monarchy is that whilst 88% of Brits said that they liked Queen Elizabeth during her reign only 60% had a favourable view of Charles as king. Danish support for their Royals is similarly tied to their matriarch. Under her father’s rule, support for the Danish monarchy sat at 42%. Under Margrethe II, this figure has doubled to 84%. In fact, both women have been so popular, and instrumental in re-establishing the popularity of their respective monarchies that their sons, two long serving princes, King Charles III and King Frederik X face an insurmountable mission; to win over a public which has lauded their mothers and media which has disparaged them. Neither Queen was expected to accede to the throne when they were born. Elizabeth, born 26th April 1926, was the daughter of a second son, the then Duke of York. Margrethe, born on the 16th April 1940, although the eldest child of the king, was prohibited from the line of succession by something called agnatic primogeniture. This meant that only male heirs could inherit the throne, therefore, Margrethe’s uncle was the heir presumptive to the Danish Crown. At the age of 10, following her uncle’s abdication and father’s accession, Princess Elizabeth became the heir presumptive to the British throne. Elizabeth married Prince Phillip (of Greece and Denmark) in 1947 and the couple settled into a family life as close to normal as being a princess and working Royals would allow. Elizabeth and Phillip had two children, Charles in 1948 and Anne in 1950, before Elizabeth’s accession to the throne. When she became queen in 1952; at the age of 25 she and Phillip were in Kenya, on their way to a Royal Tour in Australia and New Zealand. Elizabeth returned to England and much like in The Crown, a black dress was brought on board the aeroplane for Elizabeth to change into. Her coronation in June of the same year was the first televised Royal Coronation, and began a prevalence of royal celebrity culture in the following decades. Elizabeth’s reign was colourful, to say the least and it would be remiss not to mention that over the seven decades of her tenure as Queen, there was rarely a peaceful moment. From war, political upset, decolonisation, assassination attempts, an increase in celebrity culture, four Royal divorces and global attention on a family argument. Despite this, Elizabeth was often praised for her personal and royal orderliness. This may be credited to a lifetime of leading by example. Throughout their youth Elizabeth and younger sister, Princess Margaret became sweethearts of the nation. Their father’s choice to stay in London during the Blitz and Elizabeth’s service with the Auxiliary Territorial Service in the Second World War won the family, and Elizabeth in particular lasting popular support. Her demeanour throughout her reign continued this, easily progressing from sweetheart, to mother, to grandmother of the nation. Following her death, news outlets stated that her popularity came from her calm, cheerful and friendly attitude, that she exemplified a British ideology of ‘Keep Calm and Carry On’. This is particularly noticeable in media output during the recent Covid-19 Pandemic. News articles adopted a wartime-like attitude, heralding Queen Elizabeth as a steady lead against uncertainty. Media attention during this period evoked British memories of her youth and the impact of war on British Nationalism. She was for many, the only monarch they had ever had and in terms of British National Identity, even eighteen months after her death, she is synonymous with Britishness. Queen Margrethe II, as mentioned, was also not the intended recipient for the throne. The House of Glucksberg, ascended the Danish throne in the 1850s due to a law which only permitted male incumbents called agnatic primogeniture (not dissimilar to Salic Law). This was changed in a long process beginning in 1947, when her father inherited the throne and it was clear that her mother, Queen Ingrid, would not have any further children after their three daughters. In 1953 the Danish Parliament passed the law which changed the constitution to allow for cognatic primogeniture, allowing Margrethe to become heir presumptive. Margrethe began playing a more visible role in the Danish monarchy after her eighteenth birthday, chairing meetings of the Council of State in the absence of her father. She went on to study in London, where she met French diplomat Henri de Laborde de Monpezat. The pair married in 1967, and now King, Prince Frederik was born less than a year later, his brother Joachim in 1969. Much like her English cousin, Margrethe ascended the throne with two young children, in 1972 at the age of 31. Her age likely played a significant part in her popularity, much like in Britain, the nation was allowed to enjoy a young family at its head, and Margrethe similarly evolved into the mother, then grandmother of the nation. Margrethe’s impact on the Danish people’s perception of the monarchy as an institution, is more dramatic than Elizabeth’s. Studies state that throughout her 52 years as Queen, public support for the Danish Royal family has doubled, with approximately 84% of the public supportive of the Queen. Her success can be attributed to her longevity and her consistency in her reign. Supplementary to this, Margrethe is active and she is charismatic. She has forged a career outside of her monarchical identity, something Elizabeth did not. As a visual artist Margrethe has illustrated editions of the Lord of the Rings novels; worked as a set and costume designer; designed the monograms for herself, the Crown Prince and Crown Princess, their familial monogram, and others. She contributed screenplays to several films based on Hans Christian Anderson’s stories. She has also produced church textiles for use in churches in Denmark and other locations, including the Danish Church of St Katharine in Camden, London. Despite their similarities in the longevity of their reigns, their actions as queens have differed. Whilst Elizabeth became Britain, Margrethe maintained an identity separate to the crown. Perhaps this is what allows the latter to step down this weekend. Like Elizabeth II's, Margarethe's reign has not been entirely smooth sailing. Her husband publicly protested in the decade before his death that he had never been able to use the title ‘king’ or ‘king-consort’, and complained about having to ask his wife for pocket money. He was later given a salary, although he continued to complain to the press. In 2023 she came under fire for the decision to strip her younger son and his family of their ‘prince’ and ‘princess’ titles and the right to be called ‘HRH’. The Crown stated that this was an effort to allow the younger grandchildren to live freer lives, without the pressure of Royal titles as they would not be expected to participate actively in the monarchy. Joachim and his family publicly protested this change, stating that they were unaware of her decision until the news broke in the media. Furthermore, her eldest son, the Crown Prince has a less than positive reputation in Denmark for being somewhat of a scandal, with rumours of affairs being given as a potential reason for Margrethe’s abdication. Conjecture like this isn’t really a helpful debate, but it is worth returning to the question of what do these sons inherit from such queens? On Elizabeth’s death, some of the earliest news articles questioned if Charles III would remain King, or if he would pass the throne to Prince William. With Margrethe’s abdication hitting the news, the calls have a new sense of urgency, several claiming that Charles stepping down for William and Catherine would be the ‘correct’ thing to do. Negative popular opinion undoubtedly stems from Charles’ years-long affair with his now wife, Queen Camilla, and the tragedy that befell Princess Diana in 1997. Support for Prince William to become king is a sense of public justice for the People’s Princess. The British public is obsessed with the young family. News that the children of the then Duke and Duchess of Cambridge would retain their place in the line of succession regardless of gender was met with significant celebration. Princess Charlotte now retains her place in the line of succession before younger brother, Prince Louis. In Denmark, the new King Frederik X is staring down the barrel of his kingship with several years of media drama in his back pocket. From photographs of him leaving hotels with other women and partying on a yacht with Mexican models, to semi-regular news articles that his wife, Australian born Queen Mary, has seen her life go from a real-life fairy tale to a soap opera. The questions in the media now: is Margrethe’s abdication an effort to save the monarchy by giving in to what Frederick wants (the crown) and force him to ‘grow up’? Will Mary and their young family be able to retain the popularity Margrethe has built up? To return to the question of ‘what does modern queenship mean?’ the answer unfortunately remains unclear. On paper, they are figurative, ceremonious, largely redundant, and expensive. As both Britain and Denmark mourn the loss of their Queens however, it becomes clear that the figure of the monarch, and uniquely the women who wear the crown, have adopted a sub-human level of laudation and heroism. Time will tell if these women have redefined modern queenship for the upcoming European Queen regnants. Perhaps their popularity will remain a novelty to Lilibet and Daisy. Future European Queen regnants Both Crown Princess Victoria and her daughter Princess Estelle are in line for the Swedish crown. They will be the fourth and fifth Queens of Sweden, after Queen Margarethe (who also ruled Norway and Denmark), Queen Christina (who abdicated after adopting her nephew and converting to Catholicism), and Queen Ulrika Eleanora. Victoria, born in 1977, had originally been displaced by her brother as heir apparent, however, when absolute primogeniture was introduced in 1979, it was done so retroactively, allowing for Victoria to become Crown Princess at the age of two. Sweden was the first European country to make this change to absolute primogeniture and the only to have done so retroactively. Princess Elisabeth is the heir apparent of Belgium. Absolute primogeniture was introduced 10 years before she was born, marking a significant difference from the country’s previous succession laws, a version of Salic Law, which restricted women from inheriting regardless of any other factor, even if she was the only immediate heir. Princess of Orange, Catharina-Amalia will inherit the throne of the Netherlands from her father. She will become the fourth queen regnant, after her grandmother, Queen (now Princess) Beatrix, Queen Juliana, Catharina-Amalia’s great grandmother, and Queen Wilhelmina, her great-great-grandmother. Princess Amalia is however, the first of these queens to be born heir apparent, as absolute primogeniture was introduced in 1983. Princess Leonor of Asturias is the heir presumptive in Spain. Spain continues to withhold cognatic primogeniture, meaning that although Leanor is the eldest of two teenage daughters, legally, she cannot be the heir apparent on the off chance that her father may have a son to inherit. The reasons for a reluctance to alter this part of the constitution is tied to concerns that if absolute primogeniture is introduced it may inspire women who have been excluded from lines of succession outside of the monarchy to retroactively claim inheritance. (Scandalous.) When she becomes Queen, Leonor will be the first queen of Spain since Isabella II, who abdicated in favour of her son after a series of rebellions in the late nineteenth century. Finally, Princess Ingrid Alexandra will accede to the Norwegian throne after her father, the current Crown Prince, Haakon. Absolute primogeniture was introduced in Norway in 1990, 14 years prior to Ingrid’s birth, this was not enacted retroactively however, so her aunt, the elder sister of her father, Princess Martha Louise, remains displaced in the line of succession. Like Margarethe II in Denmark, Princess Ingrid will be the second queen of Norway, after Queen Margarethe in the fourteenth century. Bibliography ‘Prince Frederik Caught Out!’, Magzter, (24.06/2019), < https://www.magzter.com/stories/Lifestyle/New-Idea/Prince-Frederik-Caught-Out> ‘Queen Mary of Denmark or, was Prince Frederik's affair scandal a masterstroke?’, Saint Joan, (02/01/2024), < https://saintjoan.studio/2024/01/02/mary-queen-of-denmark-or-was-prince-frederiks-affair-scandal-a-masterstroke/> Elbaum, Rachel, ‘The life and legacy of Britain’s longest-serving monarch’, NBC NEWS, (08/09/2022), < https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/queen-elizabeth-life-legacy-uk-monarch-rcna17047> Evenett, Heather, ‘Women, hereditary peerages and gender inequality in the line of succession’, UK Parliament, (03/10/2022), < https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/women-hereditary-peerages-and-gender-inequality-in-the-line-of-succession/#:~:text=In%202013%2C%20the%20Succession%20to,the%20preference%20for%20male%20primogeniture.?> Hofverberg, Elin, ‘The Future Queen Regnants of Generation Z’, Library of Congress, (07/10/2022), < https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2022/10/the-future-queen-regnants-of-generation-z/>, Lodge, Matthew, ‘Queen Margrethe's scandal-hit son Crown Prince Frederik will take the throne just months after rumours of an 'affair' with a Mexican socialite rocked the royal household’, Daily Mail, (31/12/2024), < https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12914789/crown-prince-frederik-affair-queen-margrethe-abdicates-denmark-royal-family.html> Maltby, Kate, ‘A difficult lesson in love for poor Princess Mary of Denmark’, iNews, (02/01/2024), < https://inews.co.uk/opinion/a-difficult-lesson-in-love-for-poor-princess-mary-of-denmark-2834012> Murphy, Victoria, ‘Will King Charles ever abdicate like Queen Margarethe II of Denmark?’, Town and Country, (03/01/2024), < https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/a46274541/will-king-charles-ever-abdicate/> Ritchie, Hannah, ‘Mary, Crown Princess of Denmark: Australia celebrates an unexpected queen’, BBC News, (04/01/2024), < https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-67860144> Switzer, Charles, ‘THE DANISH CROWN STRIKES BACK: PRINCE FREDERIK 'AFFAIR RUMORS' ADDRESSED IN RARE PALACE STATEMENT’, The Royal Observer, (17/11/2023), < https://www.theroyalobserver.com/p/prince-frederik-affair-rumors-addressed-in-rare-palace-statement> TalkTV, ‘“It Will NEVER Happen” Should King Charles Follow the Queen of Denmark And Abdicate?’, < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xl2iRaSphcg> Statistics Smith, Matthew, ‘One year into King Charles's reign, how do Britons feel about the monarchy?’, YouGov, (07/09/2023), < https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/46032-one-year-of-king-charles-how-do-britons-feel-ab> ‘Share of respondents in Great Britain advising they have a positive or negative opinion of Queen Elizabeth II from 2019 to 2022’, Statista, < https://www.statista.com/statistics/1358323/queen-elizabeth-favorability-rating/> Serhan, Yasmeen, ‘Do Brits Still Want the Monarchy?’ Time, (02/05/2023), < https://time.com/6276478/british-monarchy-popularity-explained/> ‘The Most Popular Royalty’, YouGov, (2023), < https://yougov.co.uk/ratings/politics/popularity/royalty/all> Hill, Amelia, ‘British public support for monarchy at historic low, poll reveals‘, The Guardian, (28/04/2023), < https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/28/public-support-monarchy-historic-low-poll-reveals> Smith, Matthew, ‘Where does Public opinion stand on the monarchy ahead of the coronation?’, YouGov, (03/05/2023), < https://yougov.co.uk/society/articles/45654-where-does-public-opinion-stand-monarchy-ahead-cor?redirect_from=%2Ftopics%2Fsociety%2Farticles-reports%2F2023%2F05%2F03%2Fwhere-does-public-opinion-stand-monarchy-ahead-cor>