Get Even More Visitors To Your Blog, Upgrade To A Business Listing >>

Margaret Thatcher’s 1952 article on the Queen and the new Elizabethan era

In 1952, newly-wed Margaret Roberts Thatcher wrote an article for the Sunday Graphic about the accession of the young Queen Elizabeth to the throne and what it meant for British women.

On February 7, 2022, The Spectator published the article in full and included a photo of it as well as the front page, which features King George VI and Princess Elizabeth together. The headline reads:

THE KING THE PEOPLE LOVED

THE QUEEN WHO IS OUR HOPE

Mrs Thatcher looked very different to the bouffant-wearing Conservative leader and Prime Minister of later years. The magazine put a photo of her in the Order of the Garter robes.

The photos are must-see images.

The Spectator introduced the article, in part (emphases mine):

… It was published in the Sunday Graphic on 17 February 1952. Thatcher [was] just a few months older than the Queen. As Margaret Roberts, she had already been the youngest woman candidate in the last two general elections and had just married Denis Thatcher in December of 1951. At the time of writing, she was studying for the bar.

Three things struck me as I read the article: women were already in positions of power, especially in Britain; Margaret Thatcher subscribed to ‘have it all’ feminism and, finally, our saying that all women then were ‘oppressed’ is wide of the mark.

Excerpts follow.

Thatcher supported her contemporary, the young Queen, and welcomed a new Elizabethan age for women:

A young Queen, the loveliest ever to reign over us, now occupies the highest position in the land. If, as many earnestly pray, the accession of Elizabeth II can help to remove the last shreds of prejudice against women aspiring to the highest places, then a new era for women will indeed be at hand. We owe it to the Queen — and to the memory of her father who set her such a wonderful example throughout his life — to play our part with increasing enterprise in the years ahead.

I hope we shall see more and more women combining marriage and a career. Prejudice against this dual role is not confined to men. Far too often, I regret to say, it comes from our own sex. But the happy management of home and career can and is being achieved.

There was already a female QC (Queen’s Counsel) — senior barrister — at the time:

the name of Miss Rose Heilbron QC whose moving advocacy in recent trials has been so widely praised is known throughout the land. Unless Britain, in the new age to come, can produce more Rose Heilbrons — not only in the field of law, of course — we shall have betrayed the tremendous work of those who fought for equal rights against such misguided opposition.

The term ‘career woman’ has unfortunately come to imply in many minds a ‘hard’ woman, devoid of all feminine characteristics. But Rose Heilbron and many more have shown only too well that capability and charm can go together. Why have so few women in recent years risen to the top of the professions?

Thatcher said that women mistakenly thought they should forfeit a continuing career when they got married:

In my view this is a great pity. For it is possible to carry on working, taking a short leave of absence when families arrive, and returning later. In this way, gifts and talents that would otherwise be wasted are developed to the benefit of the community.

The idea that the family suffers is, I believe, quite mistaken. To carry on with a career stimulates the mind, provides a refreshing contact with the world outsideand so means that a wife can be a much better companion at home. Moreover, when her children themselves marry, she is not left with a gap in her life which so often seems impossible to fill.

Thatcher returned to the prospects of a great Elizabethan era:

Women can — and must — play a leading part in the creation of a glorious Elizabethan era. The opportunities are there in abundance — in almost every sphere of British endeavour.

She gave examples of powerful women in Britain:

We must emulate the example of such women as Barbara Ward, at 37 one of our leading economists and an expert on foreign affairs. Dr Janet Vaughan, mother of two children and principal of Somerville College; Mary Field who, as president of the 90,000-strong British Federation of Business and Professional Women, is one of our most successful ‘career women’; and Dame Caroline Haslett, Britain’s No. 1 woman engineer and founder more than a quarter of a century ago of the Electrical Association for Women.

That there is a place for women at the top of the tree has been proved beyond question by these and very many others. And if there are those who would say: ‘It couldn’t happen to me.’ They would do well to remember that Dame Caroline Haslett herself started as a 10s-a-week apprentice in a London boiler works more than 30 years ago.

Thatcher pointed out that Britain was ahead of the United States when it came to representation in political life:

American women have only six out of 435 members in the House of Representatives. We have 17 out of 625 in the House of Commons. But it is still not good enough. If we are to have better representation in parliament, the women of England must fight harder for it.

She advocated aiming for the top in political life, although she did not mention the office of Prime Minister:

Why not a woman chancellor — or foreign secretary? Why not? And if they made mistakes they would not be the first to do so in those jobs!

She concluded (italics in the original):

To sum up, I should like to see the woman with a career holding down her responsibility with easy assurance during the Elizabethan age. I should like to see married women carrying on with their jobs. If so inclined after their children are born. I should like to see every woman trying to overcome ignorance of day-to-day affairs; and every woman taking an acting part in local life.

And, above all, I should like to see more and more women at Westminster, and in the highest places too. It would certainly be a good thing for the women of Britain, and I’m sure it would be a good thing for the men too.

Certainly, Margaret Thatcher followed her own advice by serving as Prime Minister from 1975 to 1990.

All credit to the Conservative Party for supporting her and many other women members in their quest to hold political office.

The Conservatives also gave us a second female Prime Minister: Theresa May.

I daresay we’ll get a third Conservative woman PM in our lifetimes.

Meanwhile, the Labour Party lags far behind. They have never had a female party leader.

Credit for Thatcher’s rise to the top also belongs to her husband Denis, who was as supportive of her as Prince Philip was of the Queen by being a confidant and a best friend.

It is unfortunate that Margaret Thatcher didn’t cherish her daughter, Carol, more; she preferred her son Mark.

As for her relationship with the Queen, rumour had it that it was spiky on occasion. The Queen grants serving Prime Ministers a weekly audience, usually in person. Oh, to have been a fly on the wall during their conversations.

Margaret Thatcher thought that women could have it all: marriage, career and children. She could not have foreseen that taking marriage out of the equation makes working and raising a family precarious and difficult for many women.

In closing, I second The Spectator‘s thanks to Clarissa Reilly of Digger & Mojo Antiques in Woodborough, Wiltshire, for sending the magazine a copy of Margaret Thatcher’s article, which was illuminating and thought-provoking.



This post first appeared on Churchmouse Campanologist | Ringing The Bells For, please read the originial post: here

Share the post

Margaret Thatcher’s 1952 article on the Queen and the new Elizabethan era

×

Subscribe to Churchmouse Campanologist | Ringing The Bells For

Get updates delivered right to your inbox!

Thank you for your subscription

×