Ann, this is fascinating for quite a few reasons, starting with Turner as a draughtsman. What a surprise, but who am I to argue with Ruskin? Eminent women campaigning against suffrage: another surprise. Finally and fundamentally, Louise’s brave admission to her change of heart and the possible influence of her late husband on her previous position. What she feared he believed, or might believe, could be more powerful here than his actual beliefs.
Thank you Rona, and that’s an astute observation of yours about the subtleties of power involved. She didn’t think of him as controlling (though I think most of us would) but also that as the wife of a senior clergyman she had to appear to be in step with him (& a surprising number of Anglican women of her social class were anti-suffrage). I did find that interesting about Ruskin too, he never fails to surprise!
I wonder how many women still avoid expressing their true sentiments when in opposition with their spouse. Such a wonderful piece. I love that you provide sources and titles in your work. It's so helpful for follow up when you have told such a good story about someone. Thank you!
What a thoughtful comment, much appreciated. I do like to mention my sources & suggest further reading... and in today's climate Louise Creighton still feels relevant, somehow!
I beg to differ from the statement "unusually for an intellectual of that time, had also taken religious orders". On the contrary, it wasn't easy to take religious orders, if you weren't academically inclined! If you hadn't already taken a degree, some circumstances exempted that, such as devotion and service to others, but a basic academic ability was still essential (What was regarded as "basic" varied according to the ecclesial body whose member you were).
Thanks for your great point Anne, I agree and probably didn’t express it well. I guess I meant that the college wanted him to stay in Oxford rather than taking up parochial duties elsewhere. And in many ways he was overqualified to be a low-ranking clergyman, though he did rapidly progress through the ranks once he did choose that position.
I've lost my original reply - I shouldn't type when I'm tired, but need to answer now! It would depend whether the benefice was in the college's gift. They wouldn't have offered one unless he needed the income from it, if they wanted him to stay. If the offer came from elsewhere, he and the college might have negotiated with the patron how much time he would spend there. Although an earlier date, there's much in Jane Austen's novels about this.
In C19 it became much more usual to, for example, become a patron of an Anglican Religious Order and combine that with a college post. Apologies for leaping around the centuries, but the 1850s (the decade of her girlhood) were the peak time for founding women's communities, the men's came earlier. In this case, I'm sure that religious orders means ordination in the Anglican Church, not joining one of the growing Religious Orders for men, but many, both men and women, left the Religious Ordersto marry. Contrariwise, appallingly, at least one women's Order had a clause that a married woman might join, with her husband's permission! That clause was withdrawn, probably around WW1, but I vividly remember, in the 1950s . toddlers at the Profession of a retired GP, who was their grandmother. Here ends my century-leaping., but I'll be happy to clarify if and when I receive a notification. This has tuned into a many and varied discussion - apologied for Harping On -
Gosh, that is so interesting Anne, and rather puts my research on the subject in the shade (I do hope your Substack is forthcoming!). Because my focus is on the women, & the unofficial/unacknowledged part they played in Cambridge University's history, I am somewhat vague on ecclesiastical matters so very grateful to you for your comment. When I am less tired I will re-read it!
Ann, I'm 81, and was never a brilliant academic - took my BD aged 40 because my Headmistress was emphatic that I wasn't University material, but I do know what I know from experience of Oxford Diocese and University as well as East London and King's
My eyea ad fingers are no longer reliable, nor in my memory of dates - and can't always lift down the book I need! My temper is sorely tried by what is sometimes written online about Anglican Religious Communities - even by people who lived in the streets around those whose buildings survive but whose members have left us! Off to bed now - I don't think that my memories put you in the shade, - - just a different perspective. . No Substack by me will arrive. I should be photocopying family archives, but my dratted printer/scanner is misbehaving, and I'm not even sure that I shall replace my laptop which is in a very poor state. I've enjoyed this talk with you. Goodnight!
I’d love to learn more about her role in labor reform. Am researching Leonora Barry who a general investigator of the KoL from 1886-1889. A native of cork before emigrating to the US as a toddler — I’m wondering if they ever crossed paths
That sounds fascinating Diane. Do you know Maurice Casey who writes on Substack as Archive Rats? I think his work might be of interest, though more early 20thc.
I'm not familiar and thank you! These women were so strong yet so conflicted between the mores of pious churchwomen and champions of downtrodden. Eventually both came to understand agency is crucial. Perhaps, ironically, not until they were widowed.
That’s such a good way of presenting the issue, that agency is crucial, and as you say, it’s so interesting that these churchwomen (who certainly didn’t see themselves as downtrodden) thought in different ways after their husbands died.
I think she must have been, Tom, but I have yet to establish exactly what the family connection was. He is definitely mentioned in correspondence. If you have any more information on Louis von Glehn, I would love to hear it.
Thanks very much, Tom, that is very useful. I am away from my desk/laptop at the moment but when I get back I’ll see what other notes I have on the family.
What a fascinating piece. I had no idea that Mrs Ward had Louise as a supporter. Her later shift does sound rather lame, but there is no doubting her strength of will!
Ha, thanks Deborah! It's funny because I think it was a genuine change of heart (and will). It's funny, Cambridge definitely had a stronger suffrage base than Oxford, so her friends must have influenced her (even though she'd moved to Hampton Palace).
Fascinating piece. Their marriage seems reminiscent in some ways of Alfred and Mary Marshall - undeniably affectionate, but it seems likely that Mary's loyalty to her husband would have prevented her opposing his stance against women's degrees.
Many thanks, and that's a great comparison. As a woman married to a prominent Church of England figure, Louise would have been expected to conform to his views. Mary definitely disagreed with Alfred's views on women's education, and he knew that, but as long as she didn't express it publicly that was ok. A good thing she had close friends in Cambridge who understood!
It was my impression that Oxford/Cambridge College fellows were *obliged* to take holy orders - didn't Leslie Stephen resign his one because of his Atheist convictions?
I don't think fellows took holy orders, as a rule, but before the Universities Tests Act of 1871 non-Anglicans could not be members of Oxford, Cambridge or Durham universities. Leslie Stephen wasn't atheist but agnostic, a more accepted term, but you're right, he did resign because he could no longer attend the college's church services.
Thank you, Ann, from the “other” Cambridge, in Massachusetts. I enjoy your posts very much and look forward to them. They lift the heavy heart during heavy days.
Many thanks Leslie, a fly on the William Morris wallpaper would have witnessed much... & glad Andrew has clarified the Lyttelton connection (even biographers spell the name wrong sometimes).
Fascinating story (her work, her friends, her decisions, her marriage…) And beautifully told, as always.
Thank you Maria!
Ann, this is fascinating for quite a few reasons, starting with Turner as a draughtsman. What a surprise, but who am I to argue with Ruskin? Eminent women campaigning against suffrage: another surprise. Finally and fundamentally, Louise’s brave admission to her change of heart and the possible influence of her late husband on her previous position. What she feared he believed, or might believe, could be more powerful here than his actual beliefs.
Thank you Rona, and that’s an astute observation of yours about the subtleties of power involved. She didn’t think of him as controlling (though I think most of us would) but also that as the wife of a senior clergyman she had to appear to be in step with him (& a surprising number of Anglican women of her social class were anti-suffrage). I did find that interesting about Ruskin too, he never fails to surprise!
What a mind she had, and what energy!
Yes indeed, Louise - I get the impression that your namesake wasn’t always the most likeable person, but a real powerhouse.
Ann, thank you so much for this article that also shed light on Louise Creighton's relationship with Kathleen Lyttelton.
So pleased you like it, Andrew! I am keen to write more about their friendship and of course, Kathleen herself.
I wonder how many women still avoid expressing their true sentiments when in opposition with their spouse. Such a wonderful piece. I love that you provide sources and titles in your work. It's so helpful for follow up when you have told such a good story about someone. Thank you!
What a thoughtful comment, much appreciated. I do like to mention my sources & suggest further reading... and in today's climate Louise Creighton still feels relevant, somehow!
I beg to differ from the statement "unusually for an intellectual of that time, had also taken religious orders". On the contrary, it wasn't easy to take religious orders, if you weren't academically inclined! If you hadn't already taken a degree, some circumstances exempted that, such as devotion and service to others, but a basic academic ability was still essential (What was regarded as "basic" varied according to the ecclesial body whose member you were).
Thanks for your great point Anne, I agree and probably didn’t express it well. I guess I meant that the college wanted him to stay in Oxford rather than taking up parochial duties elsewhere. And in many ways he was overqualified to be a low-ranking clergyman, though he did rapidly progress through the ranks once he did choose that position.
I've lost my original reply - I shouldn't type when I'm tired, but need to answer now! It would depend whether the benefice was in the college's gift. They wouldn't have offered one unless he needed the income from it, if they wanted him to stay. If the offer came from elsewhere, he and the college might have negotiated with the patron how much time he would spend there. Although an earlier date, there's much in Jane Austen's novels about this.
In C19 it became much more usual to, for example, become a patron of an Anglican Religious Order and combine that with a college post. Apologies for leaping around the centuries, but the 1850s (the decade of her girlhood) were the peak time for founding women's communities, the men's came earlier. In this case, I'm sure that religious orders means ordination in the Anglican Church, not joining one of the growing Religious Orders for men, but many, both men and women, left the Religious Ordersto marry. Contrariwise, appallingly, at least one women's Order had a clause that a married woman might join, with her husband's permission! That clause was withdrawn, probably around WW1, but I vividly remember, in the 1950s . toddlers at the Profession of a retired GP, who was their grandmother. Here ends my century-leaping., but I'll be happy to clarify if and when I receive a notification. This has tuned into a many and varied discussion - apologied for Harping On -
Gosh, that is so interesting Anne, and rather puts my research on the subject in the shade (I do hope your Substack is forthcoming!). Because my focus is on the women, & the unofficial/unacknowledged part they played in Cambridge University's history, I am somewhat vague on ecclesiastical matters so very grateful to you for your comment. When I am less tired I will re-read it!
Ann, I'm 81, and was never a brilliant academic - took my BD aged 40 because my Headmistress was emphatic that I wasn't University material, but I do know what I know from experience of Oxford Diocese and University as well as East London and King's
My eyea ad fingers are no longer reliable, nor in my memory of dates - and can't always lift down the book I need! My temper is sorely tried by what is sometimes written online about Anglican Religious Communities - even by people who lived in the streets around those whose buildings survive but whose members have left us! Off to bed now - I don't think that my memories put you in the shade, - - just a different perspective. . No Substack by me will arrive. I should be photocopying family archives, but my dratted printer/scanner is misbehaving, and I'm not even sure that I shall replace my laptop which is in a very poor state. I've enjoyed this talk with you. Goodnight!
Goodnight Anne, and thanks for your fascinating perspective. Good luck with your archives!
goodnight
I’d love to learn more about her role in labor reform. Am researching Leonora Barry who a general investigator of the KoL from 1886-1889. A native of cork before emigrating to the US as a toddler — I’m wondering if they ever crossed paths
That sounds fascinating Diane. Do you know Maurice Casey who writes on Substack as Archive Rats? I think his work might be of interest, though more early 20thc.
I'm not familiar and thank you! These women were so strong yet so conflicted between the mores of pious churchwomen and champions of downtrodden. Eventually both came to understand agency is crucial. Perhaps, ironically, not until they were widowed.
That’s such a good way of presenting the issue, that agency is crucial, and as you say, it’s so interesting that these churchwomen (who certainly didn’t see themselves as downtrodden) thought in different ways after their husbands died.
Was she related to Louis von Glehn, French master at the Perse, and friend of Gide?
I think she must have been, Tom, but I have yet to establish exactly what the family connection was. He is definitely mentioned in correspondence. If you have any more information on Louis von Glehn, I would love to hear it.
Not a lot I fear, there is something in one of the school histories, which I have a copy of but can't lay hands on. Louis was born 1869 to Alexandre v G and Fanny Monod. Five siblings listed at https://archives.trin.cam.ac.uk/index.php/glehn-louis-de-1869-1951-french-teacher whereas Louise's parents were Robert William v G and Agnes Duncan. So Louis could have been a nephew. This page gives a little more on both Alexandre and Robert, but annoyingly doesn't tell us if they were brothers https://www.foblc.org.uk/2020/12/from-russia-with-talent-remarkable-de.html
Thanks very much, Tom, that is very useful. I am away from my desk/laptop at the moment but when I get back I’ll see what other notes I have on the family.
What a fascinating piece. I had no idea that Mrs Ward had Louise as a supporter. Her later shift does sound rather lame, but there is no doubting her strength of will!
Ha, thanks Deborah! It's funny because I think it was a genuine change of heart (and will). It's funny, Cambridge definitely had a stronger suffrage base than Oxford, so her friends must have influenced her (even though she'd moved to Hampton Palace).
Fascinating piece. Their marriage seems reminiscent in some ways of Alfred and Mary Marshall - undeniably affectionate, but it seems likely that Mary's loyalty to her husband would have prevented her opposing his stance against women's degrees.
Many thanks, and that's a great comparison. As a woman married to a prominent Church of England figure, Louise would have been expected to conform to his views. Mary definitely disagreed with Alfred's views on women's education, and he knew that, but as long as she didn't express it publicly that was ok. A good thing she had close friends in Cambridge who understood!
Would have been fascinating to be a fly on the wall when it was discussed!
It was my impression that Oxford/Cambridge College fellows were *obliged* to take holy orders - didn't Leslie Stephen resign his one because of his Atheist convictions?
I don't think fellows took holy orders, as a rule, but before the Universities Tests Act of 1871 non-Anglicans could not be members of Oxford, Cambridge or Durham universities. Leslie Stephen wasn't atheist but agnostic, a more accepted term, but you're right, he did resign because he could no longer attend the college's church services.
Thank you, Ann, from the “other” Cambridge, in Massachusetts. I enjoy your posts very much and look forward to them. They lift the heavy heart during heavy days.
That's very nice of you to write, Joan, I am very touched. These times must feel heavy indeed, I hope you are able to keep your spirits up.
Thanks, Ann for this very interesting article about Louise Creighton. It’s especially interesting that she changed her view of the suffrage.
Many thanks, Trudi. It's a reminder that women weren't all agreed on the subject, and I liked that she made her change of heart public.
So interesting. Oh, to have been a fly on the wall back then. Thank you!
Is Kathleen Lyttleton a forebear of Humphrey by any chance?
Many thanks Leslie, a fly on the William Morris wallpaper would have witnessed much... & glad Andrew has clarified the Lyttelton connection (even biographers spell the name wrong sometimes).
:) Now I'm imagining a William Morris design that incorporates flies...
Oh no! But I am sure it would be tastefully done.
Seems like a job for AI!
Humphrey Lyttelton was a great nephew of Kathleen Lyttelton's husband, Arthur, who was the first Master of Selwyn College.
Oops-- Lyttelton! Sorry! And thanks. Interesting!
Absolutely fascinating! Thank you…
Thank you Amy! Louise was a force to be reckoned with.
Thank you very much Ann, wonderfully writen with an interesting topic.
The ’fights’ on women’s right to vote might merit a Substack on its own, hinting for a friend
Haha, thanks Anders! It is a good story (or rather, there would be good stories to tell about the people involved.)