Talk:Margaret Bondfield

"Militant suffragettes"

"Her standpoint on women's suffrage—she favoured extending the vote to all adults regardless of gender or property, rather than the limited "on the same terms as men" agenda pursued by the militant suffragists—divided her from the militant leadership." - see, to me, that sounds like the key difference between her and the WSPU leadership was that she was less conservative, not less militant. The East London Federation of Suffragettes was more radical than both the WSPU and Bondfield and arguably more militant as well, and it seems to me that Bondfield might have had more in common politically with the East London Federation at least in their early period. 86.153.58.168 (talk) 14:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Ring on her left hand

I would be interested to know if there is an explanation as to why a woman who supposedly never married would wear what appears to be wedding ring on her left hand. EditorExtraordinaire (talk) 13:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Bondfield was unconventional, not only for her time but in general: "The historian Lise Sanders suggests that Bondfield's more intimate friendships tended to be with women rather than men; Bondfield's biographer Mary Agnes Hamilton described [Mary] Macarthur as the romance of Bondfield's life." There is no reason to think that she would necessarily follow a convention concerning the wearing of rings on one finger or another. (In any case, this borders on WP:NOTFORUM, unless you were proposing a change to the article.) Dwpaul ^Talk 14:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

No, I am not suggesting a change to the article. Wearing a wedding ring when you're not married is definitely "unconventional". She had her own reason for doing so and we can just leave it at that.--EditorExtraordinaire (talk) 14:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps more research can be done about the ring. If Mary Macarthur gave her the ring, that revelation would be an incredibly important addition to this article.--EditorExtraordinaire (talk) 14:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Why would anybody waste their time researching this minute and trivial little detail? How exactly do you think this will benefit the article? Cassianto^Talk 15:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I doubt she would wear a ring given to her by a man she didn't marry. That leads one to wonder whether the ring was given to her by her romantic partner, Mary Macarthur. The ring mystery is rather intriguing, to me at least.--EditorExtraordinaire (talk) 16:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Intriguing yes, but worthy of being in the article? I'm afraid not. Cassianto^Talk 17:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

• The picture showing the ring was taken in Washington in a professional studio. Presumably the subject would have wanted to dress up for the occasion. The ring doesn't seem to be a wedding band, being more like the customary engagement ring. Perhaps it was just dress jewellery. If it had significance, it might have been political as there was some suffragette jewellery of the period, for example. Andrew D. (talk) 10:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Voice

Browsing the sources, there seem to be numerous testimonials to her quality as a public speaker. I'm not sure this comes out well in the current draft as Skidelsky's "harsh cascade of sound" seems to dominate. For example, "the finest speaker she ever heard"; "her pleasantly toned, deep voice has great carrying power. I have often seen her sway an audience and lift it for the moment to the height of some great idea by the force of her own feeling and deep sincerity."; "in her clear, resonant, musical voice". We need more on this, I reckon, as it seems likely to have been a major factor in her advancement. Andrew D. (talk) 14:30, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Good point, Andrew. Sometimes a short phrase, or even a single word such as "harsh", can be overwhelming if not offset by opposing points of view.--EditorExtraordinaire (talk) 15:31, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Maggie

Her familiar nickname of "Maggie" is disputed:- edit, revert. The complaint was that there was "no basis for this addition". The main source for this fact was her obituary in The Times, which said:

"Maggie" Bondfield was a woman of lovable temperament ... "Maggie" Bondfield (the diminutive clung to her throughout her career)

This seems an adequate basis and it's easy to see this usage in numerous other sources, e.g.

1. Beatrice and I therefore had to deny ourselves the pleasure of hearing Maggie Bondfield give her 'lecture' in Newcastle this afternoon
2. "Maggie" Bondfield was a grand person, but was in office for too short a time to prove her real mettle.
3. Poulton looks sad but resolute, and Maggie Bondfield calmly goes on with her knitting.
4. Most potent is Miss Margaret ("Saint Maggie") Bondfield, His Majesty's first female Minister
5. she did not want to be a 'Maggie Bondfield, Mark II'
6. Maggie Bondfield is protesting against being handed only ½ a dog-biscuit

My position remains that she was commonly known as "Maggie" throughout her life and long afterwards. The manner of presentation in the lead was cribbed from Anthony Neil Wedgwood "Tony" Benn. Andrew D. (talk) 10:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I was perhaps somewhat peremptory in removing this detail without adequate explanation, and I apologise for that. It is not in doubt that (along with a large proportion of girls christened Margaret) she was known as Maggie. My point is that, unlike say Margaret Thatcher, the nickname was not used in her public life. The comparison with Benn is not apt, since he insisted on being called "Tony", and even had his Who's Who entry modified in this respect. I have restored a brief reference to the nickname in the text, but feel that the addition of this trivia in the lead, especially within the name itself, is quite inappropriate. Brianboulton (talk) 10:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• It's not clear that all Margarets become Maggies. I suppose Margaret Thatcher was christened "Maggie" by the headline writers but I don't get the impression that it was used informally for her in the same way as Bondfield. Bizarrely, our article for Thatcher doesn't even mention the issue but that article has too many cooks and so it's a Sisyphean task to improve it. A Margaret that doesn't seem to have become a Maggie at all is Margaret Beckett. Anyway, The Times obituary firmly pinned the name onto Bondfield so I'd still like it in the lead. Let's see what others say. In the meantime, I'll be trying to sort out Jim Callaghan whose lead used to explain his nicknames such as "Sunny Jim" but they were silently removed for no clear reason. Andrew D. (talk) 12:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• The issue is not whether the diminutive "Maggie" was used informally in Bondfield's case. It was, and I have incorporated a note to that effect into the main text. This issue is whether this minor fact is lead-worthy. WP:LEAD requires the lead to summarise the article's most important aspects (my emphasis). Can you honestly say that private use of a nickname is an important aspect of her life? It has nothing to do with her public career. I don't recall seeing it in any of the dozens of articles and documents about her that I read when preparing this article, it is not in the political commentaries dealing with her career, or indeed in her ODNB entry. To place this information in the lead would be undue elevation of trivia, especially shoehorning into the middle of her real name on the top line. She was not publicly known as "Maggie", and we should not imply that she was. I feel that the present position, a brief mention in the text, is more than adequate. As you seem to wish to pursue the matter, I will contact the editors who contributed to the peer review and FAC last year, and ask them to give an opinion. Brianboulton (talk) 16:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• As per Brian, the nickname "Maggie", in my opinion, is just not notable enough for it to be included here I'm afraid. I would wager that mllions of notable people who have Wikipedia articles also have nicknames, both privately and publicly, but it would be wrong of us to implement that nickname in the former as opposed to the latter. If Bondfield used the nickname in some sort of notable capacity, then I think you may have a stronger case, but I'm led to believe that she didn't. Also, I find it hard to imagine that someone of Bondfield's standing, coupled together with the fact that she existed in the prissy and stuffy world of Edwardian politics, would publicly use a nickname such as "Maggie". Such familiarity would have been considered as improper back then. Cassianto^Talk 16:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• I think I have to agree with Cassianto here. Yes, it needs a mention in the text, but it doesn't seem to be one of the defining features of her life, or her public image and therefore lead-worthy, (unlike Thatcher, for example: Beckett is an interesting one, and I suspect she deliberately eschews the Maggie tag precisely because of Thatcher). - SchroCat (talk) 17:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• I agree that this would be inappropriate in the lead. It might be worth mentioning in the text if she was invariably known as Maggie privately (although given how common it is for Margarets to become Maggies to friends and family, it feels like a trivial issue to highlight), but it seems not to have been part of her public profile. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 20:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I generally don't include simple diminutives as nicknames in my politics articles. I take them to be covered by the human instinct towards familiarity. Undoubtedly she was known as Maggie. Using the obvious parallel, it we do not say "Margaret Hilda "Maggie" Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher" but perhaps I am giving people ideas.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:10, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I saw the addition of "Maggie" while the article was on the front page and made a mental note to suggest it should be removed once the caravan had moved on, but then I forgot. Glad it's been picked up now. We don't add "Lillibet" to the lead of the Queen's article or "Bertie" to her father's. If, e.g. Tony Benn, the person actually sought to use the diminutive that would be another matter, but it is inappropriate here. A brief mention in the main text is plenty. – Tim riley talk 20:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• It is not necessary to mention every fact about a person in the lead, and there should be no more than the mention of 'Margaret Bondfield, known in private life as "Maggie"' currently at §Childhood and family. Robert Altman was known as Bob but that fact is not recorded in the lead as the subject was publicly known as Robert Altman. By contrast, Bill Clinton was known as Bill in public life, as correctly reflected in the lead of his article. Johnuniq (talk) 00:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I think this matter might now be considered resolved. Thanks to those who contributed. Brianboulton (talk) 00:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• No, my position remain unchanged. The contrary comments above seem to suppose that the diminutive was only used in her private life but that does not seem accurate. For example, here it is used in public speeches. I got started on this because The Times made a point of it in their obituary. Now please consider how the professional encyclopedia, Women in World History, presents this information in her entry, which starts

  Bondfield, Margaret (1873–1953)
  Trade union organizer, advocate of child welfare improvement, lecturer, and first woman member of a British Cabinet. Name variations: Maggie; (pseudonym) Grace Dare. Born Margaret Grace Bondfield on March 17, 1873, in Furnham, Somerset, England; died in Sanderstead, Surrey, on June 16, 1953; daughter of William (foreman of a lace-making factory) and Ann (Taylor) Bondfield; attended elementary school until 14; never married; no children.

They have it in the lead as a name variation. Names are often presented in a variety of ways and recording variations of the name at the outset seems helpful to the reader as it helps them confirm that they have come to the right entry. Andrew D. (talk) 11:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Margaret Bondfield. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924031814/http://www.hull.ac.uk/arc/downloads/DDCcatalogue.pdf to http://www.hull.ac.uk/arc/downloads/DDCcatalogue.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

In fiction - appeared in 'Sons and Lovers'?

I recall seeing in a TV series of DH Lawrence's Sons and Lovers in 2003 that Paul Morel and his paramour Clara attend a suffrage related public meeting addressed by Margaret Bondfield, as I heard the name announced. I would like to know if Lawrence did write her into his novel (she was not yet an MP at the time the novel was set and the novel was published in her lifetime when she was still active in the suffrage campaign) or if this was just an embellishment for tv drama purposes.Cloptonson (talk) 09:55, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Crematorium pic

Can't see the significance of the picture of Golders Green Crematorium. If her funeral was attended by so many top ministers, why not a pic of that gathering?

If a photo is publicly available, perhaps use it but note early in the 20th century the crematorium had a notice that the premises would be not open to the public when a cremation was taking place and it may have been stipulated to be private, so no press or tv cameramen allowed.Cloptonson (talk) 09:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

"living-in system"

There are numerous references to the "living-in system" and also to "living out privileges" in this article but now indication of what that means, and Google actually isn't much help. Can someone add a brief explanation? --Jfruh (talk) 01:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)