Talk:Margaret Bondfield

message: "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)
thread_title:  "Militant suffragettes" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Why would anybody waste their time researching this minute and trivial little detail?  How exactly do you think this will benefit the article? CassiantoTalk 15:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Intriguing yes, but worthy of being in the article? I'm afraid not. CassiantoTalk 17:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

text: * 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)
thread_title:  Ring on her left hand 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Voice

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title: In fiction - appeared in 'Sons and Lovers'?

message: 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)
thread_title:  "living-in system"