Mention the name Emmeline Pankhurst (1858-1928) and it conjures up the image of a martyr, a virago, the Edwardian warrior in the battle of equality of voting rights. As a woman I admire her for her single-mindedness and thank her for giving women the right to elect those who govern us as well as to become members of the great governing body – the Parliament. As an optometrist I have strong criticism of Mrs Pankhurst for being uncaring and indifferent to the visual needs of her son. Young Harry had very poor eyesight (details not available) but his mother was against him wearing glasses even though it was a great disadvantage to him during his years of development. One can only speculate the effect it must have had on his learning ability. Harry was a burden to his mother who did not know what to do with him. When he grew up, Mrs Pankhurst advised him to train as a secretary. She allowed him £1 per week and consented to him being fitted with prescription glasses so that he could see the print clearly. Harry did not finish the course and instead became a farmer for obvious reasons. It is difficult to imagine what Harry must have gone through, not being allowed to see clearly by his mother.
Today Emmeline Pankhurst would be accused of neglect and child cruelty. Had Harry been able to see clearly, his life would have been much different and better at school that could have interested him to go to college. He could even have become a lawyer to help his mother with her causes and bail her out for breaking the law. Who knows?
For the record, the Reform Bill, giving votes to women received the royal assent in 1918. Mrs Emmeline Pankhurst died soon after she was offered parliamentary candidacy for the constituency of Whitechapel and St George’s in the East End of London. The most famous suffragette, ironically, made a young male suffer beyond measure which is as unbelievable as it is unforgivable. A case of your idols having feet of clay, or in this case, having tunnel vision?
Mrs K Vadgama, London NW11