The Derby 1913 - source related study.

History Coursework Emma Raynsford 11D

History Coursework 2 – Emily Davison and The Derby 1913

Source 1 is an account written by Emily Davison referring to her attempts at suicide during her stay at Holloway Prison in January 1912, just over a year before she died at the Derby. She describes in detail her attempts to kill herself, referring to the subject with much ease, and speaks casually of the danger that she faced “I should undoubtedly have been killed.” She appears to be a very strong-minded person, as she tried many times to commit suicide, but in a short space of time, again showing her determination when her mind was set on a task. I believe this also shows that maybe she acted on impulse, and that these suicide attempts were not pre-meditated, but were the result of a sudden impulse.

It could on the other hand the fact that these suicide attempts were performed only two weeks before she was due to be released, could show that her actions were actually planned, as she patiently waited for her release date to approach before attempting to kill herself. This explanation would seem more plausible as it shows her strong dedication to the Suffragette movement, and her message would be clear to the government: even if they locked the suffragettes up, it wouldn’t stop them, but make them more determined in their protest for women’s votes. If this was the case, it shows Emily’s Davison’s resistance to the government’s methods of punishment, and that their methods had not affect on her, but in fact made her more willing then ever to sacrifice herself for “the cause.”

Sources B and C are photographs, both of the Derby Horse race 1913, taken from two different angles of the same race. Source B is the closer shot unlike source C, but the bad quality of the photo makes it difficult to see too much detail. This is a primary source, and is not bias, making it a very reliable source on its own. It depicts the huge crowd that attended the Derby, showing it’s popularity and therefore making it the perfect place for a demonstration to raise awareness…the Suffragette movement for example.

Looking closely at the photo, you can see that the majority of the crowd are not yet even aware that an accident has taken place, much too engrossed in watching the finishing race, which also highlights the position of the accident. Looking at the photo you can tell quite clearly that the accident happened at the back of the race, rather than in the front, where it would have caused more of a distraction to the other jockeys.

Source B does not show the full magnitude of the Derby, and fails to show the massive crowd that attended this event. The source is also deceiving as it fails to show the bend in the race track, where Emily Davison actually ran out on the track, this is important as it raises the question of why she chose to run out when the horses were at their slowest if she was intending to kill herself. The source does show though how easy it was to get out onto the track, and the simplicity of hiding oneself in the huge crowds until the opportune moment.

Source C on the other hand is a distant shot, showing the whole track, rather than just the accident. This photograph is also a primary source, and not bias, so like source B it is totally reliable. This shot shows the massive crowds, making it easier for us to understand why Emily chose the Derby to stage her protest, and the publicity the suffragette movement would receive.

This source shows the bend in the track clearly, and also shows in more detail the exact position of the horses when the accident took place. It also shows how difficult it would ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

This source shows the bend in the track clearly, and also shows in more detail the exact position of the horses when the accident took place. It also shows how difficult it would have been to try and stop Emily as she run out onto the track, and the difficulty for the jockeys to see her as they came around the bend, which would have created a blind spot, and therefore they would have not been able to avoid her.

I believe both sources to be of use, but I found that source C gave me the most information as to where the horses were and the extensity of the crowds at the Derby. Source C also shows the crowds on the other side of the track, expanding the image and giving me a better picture of the whole track. It also shows me that even after the accident, the race didn’t stop and that the majority of the crowds are following the end of the race. Lastly I believe the fact that source C clearly shows the bend is of great importance, and as it is unclear in source B it would lead people astray as to why Emily was hit by the jockey, and the speed of the horses at the time of impact.

The main reason the two courses will differ is due to the people who are writing them. Emmeline Pankhurst, the founder of the Suffragettes, and someone who would hold a totally bias opinion, writes source D many propaganda material, with the contents based on truth, but exaggerated to the extreme, “ Breaking through the barriers,” when in fact she merely ducked underneath the white pole dividing her from the racing horses. Emmeline was also not attended the horse race when the accident took place, but was “ bedridden in a nursing home” showing that her accounts would not even be first hand. She goes on to say that the kings horse, which was actually third from last, was “leading all the others,” an exaggeration probably added for increased heroism on Emily Davison’s part.

This brings me to my next point, which is that Emmeline would had loved the publicity to the suffragette movement, and believing in “deeds not words” would have believed this accident to have been the perfect example of what she stood for. Emmeline states that Emily gave her life “for the women’s cause,” and sacrificed her life for the emancipation of women, opinions that hold no prove, and I believe that Emmeline saw this as not much more than great opportunity to increase the publicity about the suffragette movement.

Source E on the other hand, while also being bias, is claiming the absolute opposite to that of source D, which is that Emily Davison had but a “mad notion that she could spoil the race.” It is written for The Times newspaper, by a journalist most probably a conservative male, totally against the suffragette beliefs of equality. They start article describing the race results, not once mentioning the accident in the paragraph, showing the arrogance to put the race results over the death of woman. He immediately suggests it was the “ desperate act of a woman,” painting a stereotypical picture of a hysterical women, appealing to the men who do not want to believe there could have been a motive behind the act. They go on assure that “she did not interfere with the race,” but that she almost killed a jockey, and a “valuable horse” placing the animal of higher importance than Emily.

He justifies this by saying “it was impossible to avoid her,” immediately taking the blame off both the horse and ride. They make a point of claiming that the fact the horse was the kings was an accident, whereas Emmeline tries to tell the opposite, that Emily was “offering her life as a petition to the king.”

The journalist also shows his ignorance when he claims she was involved with the Suffragist movement, when in fact it was the Suffragette, showing his lack of research, and blasé attitude.

I believe this account to be bias, as it states that the Mary Richardson is a “friend of the Pankhurst’s,” a Suffragette herself, and therefore would share the similar views as Emmeline Pankhurst. The autobiography was published in “1953” 40 years after the Derby 1913, which would increase the chance of mistakes in her accounts. She believed Emily to be a “very serious-minded person,” through meeting her “several times,” this backs-up my response to question 1, showing her determination when her mind was set on a task.

The problem with the source is Mary’s unreliability when she saw Emily at the track, she uses the work “seem” three times, as she looked on at Miss. Davison from a “distance,” and could not give a more accurate account. Mary goes on to make assumptions, which again mirror those of Emmeline Pankhurst’s as to why she gave committed suicide, “ she was about to give her life for the cause.”

She begins to exaggerate, “ I was watching her hand. It did not shake,” this view would have been near impossible as she was so far away from Emily at the time, so I believe as Mary Richardson was also a suffragette she may have expanded the truth to make it seem as though Emily was in fact more heroic, and brave than she might have actually been.

This account though, is more acute factually than that of Emmeline Pankhurst’s, telling how easy the rail was to slip under “ Slipped under the rail,” and she gives the reader an idea of how fast the horses must have been going to create the load “ Pounding of the horses hooves.”

Source G is a biography of Emily Davison, describing Emily’s visit to the “Suffragette Summer Festival” on the 3rd June 1913, a day before the Derby. Emily bought two flags at the festival, which some say she was planning to pin to the horses bridle, which explains why these flags were found on her body in source H, “ two large suffragette flags pinned inside the back of her coat.” The helper’s pass that was found on her body was dated the “4th June 1913” the day of the Derby, but Emily had said she wouldn’t be attending. ‘ She should come everyday, “Except tomorrow, I am going to the Derby tomorrow.”’ She may have wanted to turn up after the Derby, again suggesting that her death was an accident.

This suggestion is backed up by source H, as there was “the half return of a railway ticket to London.” Why would a woman by a return ticket she was never intending to use it?

Emily tells her friends to “look in the evening paper,” suggesting that Emily had been planning this for quite a while, buying the flags, practising to pin flags to horses reins by her home, these preparations were the act of a woman determined to stand up for “the cause.”

The evidence found in source H supports the account in source G greatly as the flags bought at the “suffragette summer festival” were found on her body at the autopsy, along with a return ticket to London, supported the quote from Emily in source G saying “she should come every day,” showing her intent on returning after the Derby.

When she tells her companions to “look in the evening paper,” I believe she was referring to her somehow stopping the race, causing a disturbance and stating her protest (e.g. the flags), but not for them to find out about her death. The protest would have been a triumph for the suffragettes, her death, even if the act made her a martyr, was not.

I agree with study B that Emily Davison did not intend to kill herself. Her plan was to disrupt the Derby and make a political protest by stopping the king’s horse and pinning a suffragette banner to it’s bridle. Unfortunately, although she had been practising stopping horses on a lane near her family home, Miss Davison misjudged the speed and power of a racehorse at full gallop and died from her injuries.

Beginning with source A, it shows that although Emily was trying to commit suicide, it seems more like a publicity stunt, rather than a calculated act. I believe that Emily felt so strongly about the Suffragette campaign that she would have easily given her if need be, but she would rather have shown defiance towards the government and have seen the result she had. The prison incident was a way of showing the government their methods were ineffective, leaving her suicide attempt until she was near her release, to show it didn’t mean anything to her.

Source C shows the exact point of impact between Anmer and Emily, showing that she ran out at the bend, when the horses were at their slowest point. The Derby is not only a horse race. In some senses, the race is secondary to the social importance of this event. In 1913, it was a race where society's elite turned up, including the Royal family who traditionally had a horse entered into it. Because of its importance, it attracted a very large crowd to the Epsom Race Course, also shown in sources B and C.

The race itself was a flat sprint. Epsom was shaped almost like a horseshoe. The start took the jockeys along a fast straight that lead to a long and gradual bend. The bend sharpened at Tattenham Corner where the horses slowed down before picking up into the home straight to finish in front of the Royal Box. Emily ran out at the bend, not when the first horse passed it, but waited for the majority to pass before running out. Was she specifically waiting for the king’s horse, or just the safest time to run out?

This shows she was careful about her decisions, and she was wary of the danger of going out onto the track with so many horses passing at the front. This shows that if Emily intended to kill herself, she would have chosen the start of the race, to cause the most damage to the riders, and probably would have succeeded in stopping the race. Instead, as source B and C shows, she waited patiently for the opportune moment.

The source in question 6 states that she practised pinning flags to horses bridles by her family home, showing her preparation for the real thing on the 4th June. Why would Emily have bothered to prepare, if she was to unceremoniously throw herself at a horse with the intent to kill herself? The flags found folded in her coat pocket also back up this theory, as it would have been more believable that Emily intended to pin the flags to the bridle and misjudged the speed of the horses. The horses near her home would not have compared to the speed of the racehorses at the Derby.

The evidence from source G shows strong proof that Emily intended to return the following day to the “suffragette summer festival”, using the exact words “ She should come every day,” showing her intent to return, again suggesting her death was not deliberate, but an unfortunate accident. The last piece of major evidence is the “return half of a rail ticket to London” shown in source I, showing that when she left for the Derby she did not have the intention to commit suicide. Whether she changed her mind after she got the Derby was another matter.

I believe there is a strong possibility that she was fully aware of the danger she faced, and that she may have changed her mind when she got to the Derby on whether she would be sacrificing her life or not. This view would explain the train ticket, and the planning of her return. She may have realised once she arrived at the Derby, that she would not survive the stunt she planned. Looking at her character though, it would seem reasonable to assume that she was not the kind of person to back down from a challenge.