Was Emily Wilding Davison’s death misadventure or suicide?
History HL
Word Count: 2182
Section A: Identification and Evaluation of Sources
Was Emily Wilding Davison’s death misadventure or suicide? This study investigates the motives of suffragette Emily Wilding Davison’s death from the 1913 Epsom Derby. The sources evaluated to gain insight into the enigma of Davison’s death consists of the footage of the incident itself alongside Lucy Fisher’s biography of Davison.
Source A: British Pathé “The Derby” (1913).
Obtained from the British Film Institute. This popular silent newsreel is crucial as the best of limited visual documentations of the incident. The silent newsreel is beneficial to historians, excluding distracting background noise. However, camera technology in 1913 was rigid - tracking cameras did not yet exist. Likely a Moy and Bastie 35mm cine-camera, used in newsreel and manufactured from 1909 to 1910 , these were not easily mobile, making deciphering motives on colourless, blurred film difficult . Constructively, footage is a primary source, with no biased, pre-conceived notion about the incident – valuable objectivity. However, the purpose of the footage was thus not to record her death, rather to document the arrangement of racehorses. Therefore, the camera angle is ineffective in capturing details of Davison. Nevertheless, the source’s content has value as a visual documentation, uncommon for the time. Additionally, projected text reads ‘Suffragette Killed in Attempt to Pull Down The King’s Horse’; implying that during publication, Davison’s death was viewed misadventure. The footage does not clarify her intent entering the racetrack: to die or to interfere with the race for publicity purposes.
Source B: Lucy Fisher’s “Emily Wilding Davison: The Martyr Suffragette” (2018).
A 2018 biography detailing the life and the events caused by Davison’s death, a value of the origin is its recent publication, allowing a degree of hindsight and information over 100 years after her death. Fisher includes archives she accessed, consisting of the National Archives, Royal Holloway archives The Women’s Library and the Epping Forest District Museum; occupying the pocketbook notes of police sergeant Frank Bunn, on duty during the incident at Epsom. Additionally, Fisher is a distant relation to Davison . She may be biased, portraying her ancestor in better light than realistic - limiting objectivity. The biography’s purpose is to recount Emily Davison’s life to understand her death and its impact on the movement. A value is the cohesive depiction of her upbringing and beliefs to aid the deduction of her motives at Epsom. As a biography, there are no clear arguments of her intentions, constructively not becoming hagiographic. Dually, there are limitations in the lack of clear argument, Fisher claims that Emily Davison “meticulously planned” the 4th of June. This seemingly leans toward her death being planned, but this remains unclear. Section
B: Investigation
On the 4th of June, 1913, “the greatest flat race in the world” would permanently transform Britain’s Suffragette movement. The Times wrote the following day the “desperate act of a suffragist” brought down the King’s horse “with the object of seizing the reins” . The suffragist was Emily Wilding Davison. Davison joined Emmeline Pankhurst’s ‘Deeds not Words’ campaign in 1906 ., leading to her running in front of King George V’s horse – Anmer - at the Epsom Derby on Tattenham Corner, a galvanising moment for Women’s Suffrage. This investigation will analyse the perspectives of misadventure and suicide to reach a conclusive verdict of Davison’s motivations. The British Pathé film - from June 4th 1913 - presents Davison emerging from the railings. Slowing the footage displays her raising her hands to Anmer before being abruptly knocked over . The grained, colourless footage vaguely illustrates her objective to grasp the bridle . A police report details two suffragette flags in Davison’s coat, alongside a return ticket to Victoria . The objective of attaching flags to Anmer discredits the intention of suicide.
Nevertheless, considering horses were a popular mode of transport at this time, the notion that Davison believed she could effectively attach an object to a horse travelling at over 30 miles per hour seems “preposterous” . Additionally, the issue of Davison’s train ticket defines the intention of her trip to Epsom. Feminist historian June Purvis argues that a return ticket “[indicates] that she intended to travel back home”, casting aside claims she bought the ticket to avoid suspicion . After personal correspondence with Purvis, she explained that in Davison’s possession was also “paper and envelopes to write to friends” . While this fortifies plans following the Derby, these were likely regularly on Davison’s person as it is known she wrote excessively to friends and family.
Most significantly when considering the argument for misadventure, is the June 1913 court order. On the 10th of June 1913 at Epsom Court House, Davison’s half-brother Thomas Lamartine Yates testified her fatality was accidental, claiming “she was of strong reasoning faculties” , “[stressing] her intelligence” . Crucially, the coroner concluded her death was misadventure by wilfully intruding the racetrack, with no suicidal intent. However, Davison’s mental state is in question. George Dangerfield comments on Christabel Pankhurst’s “twisted” writing of Davison’s death, remembered only as a martyr, yet Dangerfield lackadaisically addresses her “unbalanced” mind with a “love of showing off” . While his argument of the perpetuation of suicide is justified, his dismissive, unsupported opinion discussing Davison’s sanity, I find unfair and unsupported. Contrastingly, Purvis claims Davison’s education and faith makes her a “sensible woman” . Davison’s devotion to Anglicanism meant she “could not be buried in consecrated ground” if she committed suicide . Considering the importance of religion in the Edwardian era, Anglican attitudes proved crucial in understanding Davison’s religious influences. After contacting the Director of Theological Education for the Anglican Communion, Revd Canon Dr Stephen Spencer, it clarified that Anglican thinking in 1913 viewed her suicide as “a sacrifice of her life to show commitment to women’s enfranchisement” . This challenges today’s concept of suicide, as this would not have been Davison’s objective.
Nevertheless, Davison’s own writing and actions prior to her death will be centralised in evaluating the counter-perspective of suicide. This is highlighted in a letter written by Davison in November of 1911 to the Yorkshire Observer; “Militancy in plain language means to win at all costs” . Her wording being strongly indicative of a will to go to extreme lengths. Davison was later imprisoned in June 1909 , experiencing force-feeding . To avoid repetition of the ordeal, Davison barricaded herself in her cell , knowing death was imminent . She later recalled; “The thought in my mind was the moment for the sacrifice… I had no fear” , indicative of a dutiful acceptance of dying for the cause.
In 1912, Emily Davison was imprisoned again. On June 22nd, Davison “sought martyrdom” by throwing herself down a 10-meter iron staircase . She explained; “The idea was ‘one big tragedy may save many others’… I quite deliberately threw myself from the top... I then threw myself forward on my head with all my might” . Davison openly admits intending to end her life for the cause, a clear altruistic objective. Further evidence is detailed in her 1913 manuscript, premortem; The Price of Liberty (left). The manuscript concludes; “To lay down life for friends, that is glorious, selfless, inspiring! But to re-enact the tragedy of Calvary for generations yet unborn, that is the last and consummate sacrifice of the militant!” . This refers to a bible verse that also appears on Davison’s gravestone in Morpeth, England (right). The altruistic quote refers to the sacrifice Davison made for women’s rights in Britain, signifying religious importance appearing on her gravestone. 
In conclusion, Davison’s previous actions alongside discoveries at Epsom point to an intention of grasping Anmer’s bridle, yet an awareness that her objectives would likely result in death. This echoes her experiences in prison, supported by her declarations of the need for sacrifice. However, suicide as defined in 1913 was never Davison’s intention. It can be inferred that the best depiction of Emily Wilding Davison’s intentions on the 4th June, 1913, is she knew running onto the track to attach flags to Anmer could be fatal, proceeding consciously due to her willingness for sacrifice, rather than suicide.
Section C: Reflection
A recurring issue throughout this investigation was the COVID-19 pandemic’s impact on my access to educational sites. In investigating the meaning behind Davison’s train ticket, I wanted to examine the grounds of an argument about the suspension of one-way tickets by visiting the National Railway Museum in England. However, it was closed and my travel was limited. I overcame this by researching railway protocol for large events such as the Epsom Derby, but certainly learned the value of primary sources for historians.
I was also faced with different Christian understandings of suicide versus sacrifice from the early 1900s, challenging my modern-day outlook. It led me to conclude that although Davison’s death may be defined as suicide today, it would be categorised spiritually as sacrifice for the cause in 1913. Different meanings and attitudes compared to the present-day caused minor misinterpretations of sources. I learned to consider the language of the time period when interpreting sources.
Furthermore, British history recognises Emily Davison’s martyrdom for her sacrifice to women’s suffrage, but it is with frequent occurrence that Davison is known only for her death. Dangerfield claimed Christabel Pankhurst’s manipulative writing allowed her to capitalise on Davison’s death, without recognising her other contributions to the movement. With evidence to suggest Davison attended the races to attach suffragette flags to Anmer, accepting risk of death, one can suggest that her death was misused for martyrdom. Contributing to the martyrdom that focalises her death rather than life, I became conflicted while researching. Even as I visited Davison’s grave in Morpeth, I considered my addition to such exploit. However, Davison’s ardent commitment to the cause may argue that the prioritisation of her life’s legacy rather death would not have mattered to her if it meant women received suffrage. These are ethical contradictions that historians face when researching such figures of history that I now understand and have been exposed to.
Bibliography
1. “Aboyeur’s Derby: Desperate Act of a Suffragist”. The Times. 5 June 1913. The Times Archive. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/archive/find/emily+davison/w:1913-06-05~1913-06-06
2. “A year ago, A statement made by Miss Emily Wilding Davison on her release from Holloway”. The Suffragette. 13 June, 1913. https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/
3. Dangerfield, George. “The Strange Death of Liberal England”. California. Stanford University Press, 1997.
4. Davison, Emily. "A Year Ago. A Statement by Miss Emily Wilding Davison on her Release From Holloway, June 1912". The Suffragette. 13 June 1913. https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/
5. Fisher, Lucy. “Emily Wilding Davison, the Martyr Suffragette”. London, Biteback Publishing Ltd. 2018.
6. Gullickson, Gay L. “Emily Wilding Davison: Secular Martyr?” Social Research, vol. 75, no. 2, 2008, pp. 461–484. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/40972072. pg. 469
7. Imperial War Museums. "Moy & Bastie 35mm cine camera." Imperial War Museums, 20 Jul. 2020, https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/30004694. Accessed 12 Aug. 2020.
8. Morely, Ann and Stanley, Elizabeth. “The Life and Death of Emily Wilding Davison”. The Women’s Press. 1988. pg 21-22.
9. "Moy and Bastie 35m Patent Cinematograph Camera | Science Museum Group Collection." Collection.sciencemuseumgroup.org.uk, https://collection.sciencemuseumgroup.org.uk/objects/co8084632/moy-and-bastie-35m-patent-cinematograph-camera-cine-camera. Accessed 14 Aug. 2020.
10. Nym Myhall, Laura E. ‘Defining Militancy: Radical Protest, the Constitutional Idiom, and Women’s Suffrage in Britain 1908-1909’. Journal of British Studies, Vol. 39, No. 3 (Jul., 2000), pp. 340-371. Cambridge University Press on behalf of The North American Conference on British Studies.
11. P. Collette, Carolyn. “Faire Emelye: Medievalism and the Moral Courage of Emily Wilding Davison.” The Chaucer Review. Vol. 42, No. 3, 2008. pp. 223-243. Penn State University Press. pg. 223 https://www.jstor.org/stable/25094399
12. “Price of Liberty Manuscript – c. 1913”. LSE Digital Library, Exhibitions. 8 June, 2013. https://digital.library.lse.ac.uk/exhibitions/emily-wilding-davison-centenary#para19
13. Purvis, June. “Remembering Emily Wilding Davison (1872-1913)”. Women’s History Review Vol 22 No 3, June 2013.
14. Rosen, Andrew. “Rise Up, Women! The Militant Campaign of the Women’s Social and Political Union 1903 – 1914” Vol. 32. Routledge Publishing. 1974.
15. “Secrets of a Suffragette”. Directed and presented by Shahana Meer and Clare Balding. Performance by Clare Balding and Elizabeth Crawford. CH4 Documentaries, Channel 4. 26 May 2013.
16. Simkin, John. "Emily Wilding Davison." Spartacus Educational, 22 Jan. 2020, https://spartacus-educational.com/Wdavison.htm. Accessed 7 Apr. 2020.
17. "Source 5 | Transcript. Police report on the incident at the derby, 1913." Nationalarchives.gov.uk, https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/politics/transcript/g9s5t.htm. Accessed 9 Apr. 2020.
18. “Suffragette Emily Wilding Davison Memorial Issue”. The History of Parliament. http//www.historyofparliamentonline.org/emily-wilding-davison.
19. Tanner, Michael. “The Suffragette Derby”. London, Biteback Publishing Ltd. 2013.
20. The Derby 1913. Pathé News, British Pathé. June 1913. British Pathé Archives.
21. “The Suffragist Outrage at the Derby: Verdict of Misadventure”. The Times. 11 June, 1913. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/archive/article/1913-06-11/15/2
22. Webb, Simon. “The Suffragette Bombers: Britain’s Forgotten Terrorists”. South Yorkshire. Pen & Sword Books Ltd. 2014.
What were the motives of Emily Davison’s fatal act of stepping out onto the racecourse at the 1913 Epsom Derby?
Word count: 2528
EXAMPLE II
Introduction
This investigation will explore the actions of Emily Wilding Davison on the 4th of June, 1913, and what inevitably led to her decision to step out onto the racetrack and risk her life. The focus of this investigation will thus be the years of Davison’s life leading up to the day of the derby, primarily from the year 1911, to allow for an in-depth analysis of what informed her decision that day.
One of the sources that will be analyzed in depth is Carolyn P. Collette’s book, “In the Thick of the Fight: The Writing of Emily Wilding Davison, Militant Suffragette,” a collection of Emily Davison’s own writing between the years from 1908 to 1913, recounting her own experiences as a suffragette. The origin of this source is valuable as Collette has written extensively on the subject of suffrage and has specialized in the experiences of Emily Davison, publishing as many as three works on the subject, indicating an extensive knowledge on this topic. Furthermore, the date of publication, 2013, strengthens the value of the source as it indicates that Collette, provided with the advantage of hindsight, would have had access to a larger range of archives and sources. However, the origin of the source is also limited in that Collette is not a historian, but a literary criticist, and consequently might have less experience with handling historical sources and may have omitted accounts valuable toward forming a cohesive understanding of Emily Davison’s character. The purpose of this source is to shed light on Emily Davison’s own account of events (making it a primary source), which is significantly valuable as it provides a much deeper insight into Davison’s perspective and character and would be invaluable to a historian attempting to understand her motives that day. However, the source is also limited in regard to the fact that the majority of her writings published in this book had been written for the WSPU’s weekly publication Votes for Women, effectively classifying her writing as propaganda, and limiting it in terms of objectivity.
Another source that will be examined in the course of this investigation is the newsreel footage [ZH1] of the incident at the derby. The origin of this source is valuable as it was published shortly after Davison’s death, and thus shows historians how the public would have viewed the event nearly a hundred years prior. The origin is, however, also limited due to the underdeveloped technology of the time, causing the footage to be low quality and difficult to analyze in detail. The purpose of the source, to provide a visual representation of the event, is valuable as it allows historians the unique opportunity to witness the event taking place, and can, as a result of modern technology, be analyzed digitally to reveal more about Davison’s actions. A racing channel on YouTube
Nevertheless, there are limitations to using films as a source, as they can be manipulated by the creator, however this is unlikely in the case of this footage.
Investigation
The 4th of June, 1913, was a historic day for the suffragette cause. Emily Wilding Davison, a 40-year-old militant suffragette and member of the Women’s Social and Political Union (WSPU), had come to attend the Epsom Derby, the most important horserace of the year, attended by an immense number of members from the upper class, including the King and Queen of England. As the horses came running around Tattenham corner, Davison stepped out onto the racetrack and appeared to reach her hands up towards the bridle of the king’s horse, Anmer, upon whom rode jockey Herbert Jones. The horse knocked into Davison with great force, causing her to sustain injuries that would be the cause of her death four days subsequent to the incident. Whether or not Davison failed to take into account the horse’s immense mass and speed, and hence whether the act of leaping in front of the king’s horse was a deliberate act of sacrificing her own life for her cause or a miscalculated attempt to pin a suffragette flag onto the horse, is the question that will be further explored in this essay.
Since the event in 1911, historical scholarship has overwhelmingly supported the view that Davison’s act of stepping onto the course that day was a deliberate act to sacrifice her own life in order to bring attention to the women’s suffrage cause [9, 10]. The key point that has led to this common belief among historians has been Davison’s radical belief that only after the spilling of blood would the cause receive the necessary attention from the media (and hence the population) to make any significant changes for women vis-à-vis enfranchisement. Knowledge of this conviction can be gathered from the testimonies of her acquaintances and contemporaries, as well as from her own writings. Emmeline Pankhurst, the leader of the WSPU, recounted in her memoir, ‘My Own Story’ (1914) [4], some of the statements that Davison had made to her fellow suffragettes; the nature of which can be summarized in that Davison believed a “public (as opposed to prison) death needed to occur” in order to call attention to the cause [1]. Gullickson documents that “at least two of her friends… tried to convince her that “even if she was right that "a life would have to be given before the vote was won," it should not be her life.” [3] In reference to her previous suicide attempt in prison (which will be further elaborated on later in the course of this essay), Davison wrote in her own words that ‘nothing but the sacrifice of human life would [allow] the nation be brought to realize the horrible torture our women face.’ [9]. Furthermore, Davison had been recorded to have said to the prison doctor that ‘a tragedy is wanted’ in June 1912, only a year prior to her eventual death, [5] giving reason to believe that the incident at the 1913 derby had been a planned occurrence by Davison.
Another factor that has led historians to believe that Davison’s actions that day were a deliberate attempt to commit suicide is the overall consideration of Davison’s prior actions. Twice had Davison attempted suicide at Holloway Prison; her goal “not to escape the torture through death, but to save her friends.” [3] from the torture of forcible feeding, in which the subject was held down by four people and liquefied food was poured down the mouth [8] (as a form of passive protest, many of the suffragettes had taken to going on hunger strike while being imprisoned). [ZH2] The first suicide attempt was made when Davison refused to eat and attempted to barricade herself in her cell to prevent any further attempts at forcible feeding. Eventually the authorities were able to force Davison into opening the door by use of a hose-pipe, and proceeded to forcibly feed Davison. [2] Following this, Davison attempted to throw herself out of the window, in her own words, her intentions were the following: “some desperate protest must be made to put a stop to the hideous torture which was now our lot. The idea in my mind was ‘one big tragedy may save many others’” [2]. It is arguable that this statement made by Davison herself in the context of this previous suicide attempt can be considered as a motive for her death in 1913; an attempt to martyr herself for the sake of her fellow women. This was the belief held by Emmeline Pankhurst, who wrote that "Emily Davison clung to her conviction that one great tragedy, the deliberate throwing into the breach of a human life, would put an end to the intolerable torture of women." [12] This statement by Pankhurst, who was the leading figure and founder of the WSPU, would in all likelihood have information and details to the
What must also be taken into account when examining Davison’s motives that day is the evidence gathered subsequent to the incident. Through eyewitness accounts, some historians have gathered that it had been Davison’s aim to die for her cause that day. Mary Richardson[ZH3] , a friend and co-suffragette of Davison’s, claimed to have been an eyewitness of the occurrence and explained Davison “knew that death was galloping towards her” [5] and that "a minute before the race started she raised a paper on her own or some kind of card before her eyes. I was watching her hand. It did not shake... And suddenly she slipped under the rail and ran out into the middle of the racecourse.” [12] This report was given in Richardson’s 1953 account ‘Laugh A Defiance,’ making this witness account less reliable and credible, as the significant amount of time passed since would most likely have an influence on her memory of the event. However, the footage of the day does support the degree of determination described by Richardson, in the manner in which It must also be further emphasized that Davison had had experience with horses in the past and hence should have known the risk of stepping in front of a race horse, due to her time spent as a governess, in which hunters on horseback would congregate at her place of work, as well as the fact that at the time, there were over a quarter of a million horses in London, where she lived. [10]
It is often argued[ZH4] that Davison’s intention in that moment was not to die, but to tie a suffragette flag to the King’s horse, as through evidence it has been asserted that Davison had a flag in the suffragettes’ colors with her [3], and would have been able to pick out the king’s horse at a distance, as “she had marked her card for the preceding races and studied the form. She knew the horses and… she could not miss the jockey wearing the King’s colors, even if she only had a split second to spy them: Herbert Jones’s silks were of rich red sleeves and a blue body.” [ZH5] [11] A closer inspection of the footage from the incident allows one to see Davison singling out the King’s horse as other horses rushed past, and digital analysis of footage from three angles has pinpointed Davison’s position on the racetrack to prove that she was at the beginning of the bend of Tattenham corner, and would have had a much clearer line of sight of the approaching cohort than has been accepted. [14] Her intention to reach only the King’s horse is evident. Footage of the incident also clearly depicts Davison clutching at her ‘Votes for Women’ scarf with an outstretched arm. The case that has been made by many scholars is that due to the video’s evidence of her holding the scarf folded, her aim would have been to unfurl the scarf over the king’s horse’s bridle, with a slight movement of the hand. Thus, there is convincing evidence to counter suicide and support a miscalculated attempt to attach the scarf to the horse’s bridle.
This, however, raises the question of whether her intention had been to die by the King’s horse, a bold statement that would evidently give rise to a great deal of controversy and call attention to the suffragettes’ cause, or simply to tie her suffragette scarf around the bridle of the king’s horse[ZH6] , “so that the King’s horse would be carrying the suffragette colors across the finishing line. This would have been a very public petition to the King as he sat in the royal enclosure by the winning post, had she succeeded.” [11] Other arguments that have been made to counter suicide include holiday plans that had been made with her family for the following month, a ticket for a WSPU function that was to take place on the following evening, the fact that she had had a house key with her, and what is often considered the most bewildering, a return ticket for the train ride to London. [2]
It will remain to be a mystery what Emily Davison’s intentions had been that day, whether it had been to tie a scarf to the king’s horse or to risk her own life for the sake of her cause, however to the larger extent the evidence points toward a spontaneous decision reached by Davison that day, which was that a suffragette death by the king’s horse would draw the most attention to the objective of the WSPU. It can be asserted that regardless of her exact intention, Davison had been ready to sacrifice her own life in a noble attempt to open the public’s eyes as to why change regarding the treatment of women was necessary. As said by Christabel Pankhurst at Emily Davison’s funeral in 1913, "so greatly did she care for freedom that she died for it. So dearly did she love women that she offered her life as their ransom. She has said: 'I want the Vote, I care for it, more than my life, and I give my life as a pledge of my desire that women shall be free."'
Reflection
Through the process of collecting information and analyzing sources to reach a conclusion for this investigation, I was afforded the opportunity of experiencing the challenges faced by historians when trying to find ‘answers’ regarding events in history. Among the myriad of methods applied by historians to gain information on their subjects, I informed myself more profoundly through the reading of books by historians specializing in the women’s suffrage movement, accounts delivered by contemporaries of Davison, Davison’s own first-hand account of affairs at the time and analyzed film footage depicting the incident.
Although these sources provided me with a diverse range of information and forms of media, allowing me to formulate an objective judgement, I was also faced with some difficulties when analyzing these sources. Firstly, as a large deal of the contemporary sources were quite polarized [ZH7] in their portrayal of the event that day, it was difficult to find a factual account of the proceedings leading up to the accident. Additionally, accounts made by fellow suffragettes and members of the WSPU could not be relied upon alone, as there was the possibility of propaganda contained therein. The film of the incident presented some challenges as well, as the low-quality of the footage made it difficult to discern certain actions.
Due to the international development in the women’s rights movement since 1913, the modern scholarly articles I had found proved to be overwhelmingly dominated by the ideology of the feminist movement, and hence predominantly characterized Davison as ‘a secular martyr’ [3], presenting the challenge of avoiding my own judgement to be over influenced in one direction or another.
Moreover, it must be stated that in investigations into historical events, it is near impossible to find ‘answers,’ as in history, when compared to subjects such as science or mathematics, there can never be a definite answer or an ‘absolute truth.’ The task of the historian is to deduce the most likely answer from the information available to them. In order to come as close to the truth as possible, they must also take into account the reliability of the sources analyzed and reach an informed conclusion.
Bibliography
[1] "Emily Davison." Britannica School, Encyclopædia Britannica, 22 Apr. 2013. school.eb.co.uk/levels/advanced/article/Emily-Davison/603282. Accessed 15 Feb. 2018.
[2] COLLETTE, CAROLYN P. “In the Thick of the Fight: The Writing of Emily Wilding Davison, Militant Suffragette.” University of Michigan Press, 2013.
[3] Gullickson, Gay L. “Emily Wilding Davison: Secular Martyr?” Social Research, vol. 75, no. 2. Summer 2008. Search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aqh&AN=33650459&site=ehost-live.
[4] Pankhurst, Emmeline. “My Own Story.”
[5] Pugh, Martin. “The Good Terrorist.” History Today, vol. 63, no. 6, June 2014, p. 4.
[6] Collette, Carolyn P. “‘Faire Emelye’: Medievalism and the Moral Courage of Emily Wilding Davison.” The Chaucer Review, vol. 42, no. 3, 2008, pp. 223–243.
[7] GRANT, KEVIN. “British Suffragettes and the Russian Method of Hunger Strike.” Comparative Studies in Society and History, vol. 53, no. 1, 2011, pp. 113–143. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/41241735.
[8] Collette, Carolyn P. “Hidden in Plain Sight: Religion and Medievalism in the British Women's Suffrage Movement.” Religion & Literature, vol. 44, no. 3, 2012, pp. 169–175.
[9] Purvis, June. “Misunderstood.” History Today, vol. 63, no. 8. Aug, 2013.
[10] Atkinson, Diane. “Deeds Not Words.” New Statesman, vol. 134, no. 4743, 6th June 2005.
[11] Brown, Colin. “An ACCIDENTAL Martyr? The 100-Year Mystery of Why Suffragette Emily Davison Threw Herself under the King’s Horse.” Daily Mail Online, Associated Newspapers, 29 Oct, 2012. www.dailymail.co.uk/home/you/article-2222512/The-100-year-mystery-suffragette-Emily-Davison-threw-kings-horse.html
[12] Simkin, John. “Emily Wilding Davison.” Spartacus Educational, Spartacus Educational, Jan. 2015, spartacus-educational.com/Wdavison.htm.
[14] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-W_URTWjgR0
