 Wel, ddweud i chi'n Myrraedd, ond mae'n ddweud i fy nghywgrifennu gynnwysbryd rydyn ni. Rydyn ni wedi bod yn gweithio o'r byd, o'r rhan o'r holl, ac rydyn ni wedi'u bach o'r gweld yn ei gŷl. Rydyn ni wedi'u rheswch arall o'r oedd eich cael eu ddweud. Rydyn ni wedi'u bach ar bobl yn oed yn ddiddordeb yn ni. Ond wedi'u bach yn ei ddweud. A phwng ar ymgwrdd yma, rydyn ni'n ddweud i chi. felly rydyn ni wedi'u bach ar bobl. Ymddangos, mae gennym ni weithio i'r gweithio, i gwybod ar gyfer y broses, ymddangos i'r ymddangos i'r gweithio i'r ymddangos i Elsin Munro, o'r Hartley, Rhamston a Margo Eats. Margo a Hartley erbyn i'r gweithio i'r cyfwyr ac ymddangos i'r cyfwyr yn y pethau o'r 20 yma, ac mae'n fwyaf i London ar y 1920-1990. Yn gyfwyr ymddangos i'r gweithio, mae'n gwneud yn ymddangos i'r ymddangos i'r gyffredig, yn gyfygofydd. A gael ddweud yng Nghaerhwyr, Matt List, Hayden Loryma, Ffilix Driver, yn mynd i gael y bŵa bwysig i ddweud eich cyd-igol yn gyfygofydd yn gyfygofydd yn cyhoedd. Yn hynny, mae'r lleidio hefyd yn fagorol y cyd-igol yn y bayf yn ychydigol yn gyfygofydd, ac mae'r lleidio cyd-igol yn gyfygofydd o'r cyd-igol yn ei ddweud y cyfysg yma yn y cwm ysgrifennu. mae'r cyfnodd yn edrych i'r lluniau, yng Nghymru, yng Nghymru yw'r ffordd, a yng nghymru sy'n dechrau'n gwneud o gwybodaeth yn gyfroedigol a'r ffordd, ymddangos ymddangos a'r ffordd. Felly, ei wneud y ffocws mewn ysgol, oherwydd mae Margo yn yn y rhan o'r rhan o'r cyfnodd, ynghylch ar Llandfyniad yng Nghymru, ac y Llancasterhau Abergwyll, ar gyfer y gwirio'r Gweithredu. The talk will outline the context of the museum of wartime, discuss the responsibilities that Margot had, point to her position in the network of women who shaped museum work during the Second World War, and explore the influence of her relationship with Hartley Rammstein. Mae'n gweld o'r cyd-dweud, mae'r gwrs-dweud yn rhoi gael ydw i gweithiaeth yn yw ysgol, mae'r gwrs-dweud yn cyd-dweud yn gweithio'r gwybodaeth a'r gweithgau gwneud a'r gweithgawdd yn yw ysgol. Mae Mabo Eat, rwy'n meddwl â'r gweithredd, mae'n gweithio yn 1913 i Lluïs Eat, rwy'n meddwl am ysgol, rwy'n meddwl a chynghwyr sydd wedi'i cyfrwyngu dech machtaith. yna, mae mae'n wneud i'r llyfr angen yng Nghymru'r llyfr i ddweud bod hynny'n gweithredu hynny'n gweithredu'r llyfr nid yn ddod y prosol yng nghymru, ac mae'n ddod yn ddod y gyrddwyr yng Nghymru ynghoriwyr yn ychydig yn ffryd. Byddwn i ddod yn ddod yn ddod y prosol hynny. Mae'n ddod o'r gwybodaeth o'r bufod. Dwi'n ddod o'r pest yn gweithio, o'r phobl sy'n gweithredu cyfnod. Er fath oaf, ac Dr Eaves, mae'r gennymau. Mae'n amser i'n gwirio amsrifadau, a mae'n amser i'r amser i'n gwirio amsrifadau a'r angen Greith. Mae'n gweithio'r gwaith i'r Tessa yng Nghymru ar y gyflawn i ddod i ddod i ddod i'r gyflawni'r ddod i ddod i'r bod yn ei ddod i ddod i'r gyflawni. Mae'r ddod i ddod i ddod i ddod i ddod i ddod i'r gyflawni'r gyflawni. bytesa wela a her husband Mortimer wela. The excavation ran for four seasons with around 100 staff each season. Marlborough was involved in managing press and inducting new members of the team. She worked on the excavation with a team that includes several notable women archaeologists whose names are probably now mispronounced. Veronica Stetton-Williams, Joan de Plack-Taylor, Rachel Maxwell-Hyslop, Marlin Collingwch, and Beyr Justa Cardi. Marlborough was soon also working at the London Museum where she would become acting keeper during the Second World War. During the war she organised both the removal and safe storage of the collections and she also put on a remarkable exhibition of contemporary art. Today I'm going to focus on one part of the research we've been carrying out which concerns the exhibition new movements in art and while it's reflected a little bit on how Marlborough's relationship with Hartley underpinned it. Marlborough and Hartley met as young women in 1930 and they spent basically the rest of their lives together. They lived and worked together throughout their lives and the romantic loving relationship was at times sexual as Marlborough's papers record. In 1932 Marlborough wrote that she wished I would share my love with the whole world if I could. The happiness it gives me is supreme. Hartley was given the name Eileen at birth but used the name Hartley from the 1930s. In her younger years Hartley's look which include wearing her hair cropped and wearing trousers and suits come inside her with popular fashions for young women although her commitment to this look out lasted the trends by many decades. Hartley was referred to as Miss Ramstone and with female pronouns throughout her life and after her death but on at least one occasion it looks like she referred to herself as son. Marlborough certainly identified as being attracted to women and obviously considered Hartley a woman but like Hartley's friends and peers we use female pronouns throughout our research whether we continue to search for Hartley's own preference which is actually quite difficult to unpick throughout a century where gendered language was used so frequently thinking of phrases like dear sirs, gentlemanic criticism, the kind of praise that Jill mentioned earlier and so on. Marlborough began work at the London Museum which was open within Lancaster House in 1937 as a part-time lecturer. It was a transformational time for the museum. Malton Molyla was the museum's keeper and he and Tessa were keen to professionalise the organisation which had to be turned, they said, from a junk shop into a tolerably rational institution phrase which, working at the Transport Museum, a sort of rival school for the Museums London gives me great pleasure to use it. The wheelers recruited more women as well as Marlborough would point Beatrice Dacardi and Felasta Cruz Sover we heard about earlier and saw wearing the connection. Interesting lectures for school children and adults and one of museum's priorities and Marlborough delivered these. She would later appear on the BBC soon after her beginning work at the London Museum as she presented some of the first examples of TV archaeology which Sarah Perry's research has examined in more detail. The London Museum, especially in the couple of years following Tessa's death, seems a very strange and quite toxic working environment to my eyes as I read about it today. Marlborough was a source for Hawke's biography of Mortimer Wheeler and the stories about how he touched, harassed and bullied the women who weren't there were really unpleasant to read, if not entirely unfamiliar to readers today despite Hawke's less critical attitude perhaps. The Museum's four male senior staff left the military service in 1939. Before he left for his posting in North Africa, Mortimer Wheeler divided the collection into three categories with Margo's help. Objects to be stored underground at Dover Street Station, helpfully on this transport museum poster. Objects like costumes, which the last I would have worked with, to be stored at a country house in Buckinghamshire and other objects to be stored in the reinforced basement of Lancaster House. As acting keeper Marlborough oversaw the movement of the collection for safe keeping in September 1939, partly was clearly working in and around the museum on an informal basis throughout this period and managed to record her amusement at the process. In a poem entitled, The Museum is in Course of Disarrangement, a true and accurate account of the packing at Lancaster House. Partly scathingly mocked Museum's collections but though her lengthy description of material suggests she spent a great deal of time at work with Marlborough because you can, I don't know if you can make out the text there, but it refers to objects like the paper flowers and the painted fardings and things like that, which you can still see in the Museum of London's collection today. So she must have been kicking around the office plenty. We can only wonder at what the atmosphere was like in the museum at that time amongst the women left running and reporting on the organisations we were left behind. This period also saw the organisation of the Institute of Archaeology and in her recent paper, Katie Moho, notes that Margo helped Wheeler to keep up with Kathleen Kenyon's activities on the sly. They exchanged correspondence what he was in India about Kenyon and the Institute. It was easy to imagine that Margo provided comparable reports on her colleagues at the London Museum. In particular, the relationship between Beatrice Dacardi and Eats was not an easy one. We know that Beatrice Dacardi disliked Margo intensely, partly I believe for her ethnicity and had done for some time and maintained this opinion throughout her life. In a revealing old history, recorded in 2012, Dacardi recounts how she had hated Margo on site, describing her as an Anglo-Indian with a mustardy coloured complexion heavily made up and stout. Lancaster House was first bombed damaged in 1940. During that year, Margo and Beatrice continued to give lectures, maintaining the museum's focus on everything which could be collected of the historic interest connected with London from the earliest times. In 1941, Lancaster House was bombed damaged again. The museum was closed and Dacardi was seconded to the foreign office. Hartley took up the role of the museum assistant working with Eats and Dacardi resented disappointment I believe to the end of her life as she reflects on it in that 2012 interview. With the damaged building, almost all its clerical staff elsewhere and the museum's collection stored out of sight, the controlling and ordering processes of the museum were disrupted. Alongside these forces, Hartley's influence on the activities of the museum were growing alongside her professional employment. From 1941, Margo and Hartley had been in regular contact with the artist Paul Nash concerning an article Hartley was writing. In January 1942, Eats wrote to Nash outlining Ramston's ambitious idea to host an exhibition of contemporary art at the London Museum and this bit terrifies me in March. So that's like a two and a half month turnaround for a major exhibition. I hope my direct was never here of that scale. The exhibition, new movements in art, not only re-open the museum but represented a significant break with the museum's focus on London. The exhibition emerged from the shared relationships, contacts and network of Margo and Hartley from the balance of their personalities and manners. In all the years of the London Museum and even through to the subsequent Museum of London, no exhibition like this has ever been attempted let alone delivered again. The exhibition featured work produced in England from 1937 onwards so about five, four and a bit years. Many of the artists selected from part of the St Ives School, Nash, Barbara Hettworth, Ben Nicholson, Nam Garbaugh, others like Pierre Mondrian were included because they had pitched up in England in light of the imminent war in Europe. Some of the pieces were retrieved from galleries and private collections in London and St Ives but many were loaned by the artists themselves. Lancaster House was reopened on 17 March 1942 for the private view of new movements, opening up the space in both a pragmatic and an imaginative sense. Margo and Hartley juxtapose the solid-state Victorian interior of the museum with contrasting surrealist and constructivist works that highlighted the radical nature of the new movement's project. Nam Garbaugh's delicate kinetic sculptures must at the time be a wonderfully alien amongst the museums' columns and high ceilings. Garbaugh himself was delighted and surprised with the exhibition, writing about the wonderful response his work received from the 10,000 visitors who saw it during the museum's march to May Run. The juxtaposition isn't always so successful and the new statesman notes that against the interior Mondrian's designs looked lifeless and reminiscent of a strip of liner in a suburban bathroom. However, the new statesman also noted that Nash's serpents in the woodpile shown here was startling in pale shades of pink and blue and John Tarnard's landscapes are singled out for their rich warm colours. In Hartley's foreword to the exhibition she noted that new movements is in every sense new referring to the museum and its traditional remit to the chaos of the war that closed Lancaster House and the innovations in practice and techniques that the artists embodied. The exhibition was well received with the new statesman praising it as a commendable enterprise. The news review wrote of the importance of such a challenging but above all optimistic exhibition during wartime and Country Life noted the strange transpositions that resulted from the absence or preoccupation of museums' male directors and placed in Margo and Hartley's work on new movements within a broader trajectory of female-ed change museums' priorities and practice. However, what the exhibition catalogue and critics reviews can't show is how reliant the success of the exhibition was on Margo and Hartley's relationship. The correspondence between Margo and Hartley, the risk of being redelted, Margo brought warmth, the wit and passion, whereas Hartley could be inflexible, high-minded and sometimes a little bit difficult. Taking the correspondence with Paul and Margaret Nash as being both exemplary and unique we can see how complementary their synergy could be. Margo undertaking emotional labour, writing to invite the Nash's to drink in our drinks, could jowl in port and end artworks, apologising for Hartley forgetting to write, smoothing over tensions within the hot house of St Ives and Hartley providing professional exposure. Although her correspondence with Paul and Margaret Nash was warm as affectionate, she did appear to have more of a concern of posterity and building up a call plus of close to critical writing on the new movement of art they were all living through. The relative invisibility of Margo's emotional labour in the story of modernist art drew Elsa and I to her in the first instance and it's the historical and contemporaneous devaluing of this labour that makes her legacy difficult to discern. Hartley's in some ways easier to trace because she's left a significant body of writing but it's possible that without Margo she may never have gained or probably maintained access to this circle of artists that she needed. We know that even within the relatively open art museum scene female homosexuality was still treated with contempt at this time. A stenographer at the National Gallery, obviously just down the road, believed that she was dismissed due to prejudice regarding her emotional makeup as an invert contemporary phrasing that denoted female homosexuality. Margo and Hartley were also responsible for keeping the museum open until November 1943 when the government took over Lancaster House and the last of the collections were shipped out. In part they were able to do this by virtue of their tenacity and the fact they were both extremely well respected and well connected but Margo and Hartley's engagement with the museum's space could be read in another way as an extension of their domestic life and of their relationship. At the time it was not unheard of for keepers and museum staff to live on site did the wheelers briefly had done and to Cardi also claimed to but Margo and Hartley didn't live at the London Museum or claim to him. During part due in part to the difficulties of securing a mortgage at the time as a same-sex couple the pair lived in Acton west London with Margo's parents for a time so for them the museum became a place to host drinks parties and to meet with colleagues and friends who were in table to the functioning of the London art scene. For Margo's descriptions of these parties and the correspondence between Margo, Hartley and others we can suggest that parties at the museum functioned as a sort of liminal space where the relatively closed nature of the institution was mobilised in order to create something more like a safe space. It's also worth noting here that the treatment of gay men at this period was also very different and I'll pause here to acknowledge that Margo's religious conviction was partly expressed in her younger years through homophobic remarks in her papers. In the mid 20th century criminalisation and entrapment ended the careers of Margo and Hartley's male gay peers for instance Trevor Thomas, excuse me, the curator who presented new movements in our in Leicester after it closed in London. Pink News reported that in Leicester's liberal circles it was known and privately accepted that Thomas was gay. His downfall therefore came as a shock. An allegation that he and a young man had looked towards each other in a suspicious way at a public laboratory bought him before the city magistrate. He was subjected to a tirade from the bench bound over to keep the peace and thrown in a cell. This treatment which effectively finished his career in the UK. As he came out of the magistrates court he received his missal notice from the assistant town clerk on the steps of the town hall. In this context Margo and Hartley spent a great deal of time and energy maintaining the appearance of their relationship. In the archives there are traces of significant efforts to anticipate, mitigate and narrate their relationship in the minds of those around them between themselves and on occasion for posterity. Let us reveal discussion of whether other people will understand their identities. The Margo even wrote an extensive and detailed, unpublished defence of her sexuality and relationship with Hartley, which is now in the state archive. It was in this document that she outlined the full nature of their sexual relationship and declared her desire to tell the world of their relationship and to live openly. Through these efforts Margo and Hartley appear to have suffered less unfair treatment and criminalisation than some of their peers were subject to. Even without evidence of unfair dismissal or criminal proceedings we know they were subject to homophobic abuse and attitudes. Dacardi accuses Margo of installing Hartley, she says she installed her lesbian lover and Dacardi's old job after she was seconded away and we must understand that the word lesbian here was a loaded term at that time. The moment of opportunity passed as the world came towards its end and a new male keeper was appointed to the London Museum and in late 1945 the male staff returned. Soon Hartley and Margo moves on too. Margo wrote the first chronicle of Paul Nash's work after his death in 1946 and Hartley acted as an editorial consultant on Paul Nash's partly completed autobiography, wrote on 20th century sculpture and learned classical Italian in order to translate Michelangelo's letters. Margo's departure from archaeology coincided with a huge number of women leaving the field. Perhaps her interest in archaeology waned or passed. Perhaps she preferred the interests that align more closely with Hartley's passions for art. Perhaps the passing of Nash and the reshaping of the art scene lent urgency to art writing and she prioritised that above archaeology. Perhaps the party's growing eminence in archaeology actors as a deterrent. It's very hard to know whether she left the field of her own volition or whether the discipline shifted around her and pushed her away. Margo remained in touch with many of her archaeologist's network till the very end of her life. Although it continues to be amused me that Margo was never particularly interested in London, I don't know, it was my question. Margo and Hartley went on to long careers publishing criticism and art history and for a short time they edited a journal together. Margo and Hartley produced a TV programme adapted from Hartley's research and informed by Margo's early experience of archaeology on TV. Since their deaths, their papers have gone to the Tate archive where they are kept together as the Margo eats and Hartley Ramston archive collection. In many ways there are incidental figures in the history of art and criticism in the 20th century. This is a small story, as Lorimer might put it, and yet it suggests so much about queer lives, museum work, collaboration and relationships. However, the Tate collection is a testament to two lives lived together and to the generative and disruptive power of Hartley and Margo's relationship. Kerry and Morrison at Al have written in their recent exploration of critical geographies of love that people are not distinctionate selves and loving is not just about merging or blending, it is always already relational and inseparable. I think anticipating this sort of statement Neil McGregor who was a friend of the couple in the 90s wrote to Margo after Hartley's death noting everything Hartley managed to do was in a sense done by you both. So much museum work relies on networks, relationships, friendship and support, as in fact this research depends on others' friendship, encouragement, support and research. The London Museum was a site that helped sustain Margo and Hartley's relationship, offering space, work, employment, connections and contacts, and in turn their relationship sustained the museum. Their shared interest pumped in an exhibition project that reopened the museum after bomb damage providing somewhere for 10,000 people to visit in six or seven short weeks. One of the archive boxes contains Margo's poems and I'll wrap up with one of these. We've come home at length through all the world of thought here to each other's side. Quiet now within the stillness of our transcending passion shall we lie together in the hands of God. Hartley being Hartley expresses it differently in the acknowledgments of her book of translations of Michelangelo's letters which she dedicated to Margo for Margo always with gratitude. But what in conclusion can I say to my devil's advocate Margo is for so much and so much. That's the end of my talk. Thank you very much.