Posts filed under “Correspondence on Nightingale/Seacole misinformation”

From Rebekka Campbell, BBC Schools

Dear Professor McDonald,

Thank you for your letter dated 5 August 2014 which raises a number of issues relating to School Radio’s content on Mary Seacole. We appreciate you taking the time to contact us and for your detailed comments: we of course take the question of accuracy very seriously. I trust you received our email dated 18 August explaining that we were investigating your complaint. Please accept my apologies for the short delay in sending on this full response.

We note that the bulk of your complaint is related to the teacher’s notes and the extension activity. Clause 2.3 of the BBC’s complaints framework clearly states that complaints about content currently published on a BBC website should be made within 30 working days of the date when it first appeared online: http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/our_work/complaints_framework/2012/editorial_complaints.pdf
The notes and activity you refer to have been online continuously since 2010. Therefore we do not feel that it is practicable and cost-effective to investigate this part of your complaint.

The clips were also first made available online in 2010, but were re-broadcast on 25 June 2014 as part of School Radio’s series on the Victorians. We can therefore consider the audio part of your complaint as your letter was dated within 30 working days of this re-broadcast.

I will preface all my comments by saying that the clips are clearly presented as an audio drama for primary school children. As such, factual events may have been simplified and scenes/characters/dialogue created to allow the drama to unfold in a way that young children can follow. That said, the clips do intend overall to present a historically accurate picture of Mary Seacole’s life.

Firstly, you state that ‘On the clips, a segment shows Mary Seacole running a hospital, called the British Hotel…’ It’s true that at the beginning of the clip Seacole’s character does twice refer to the British Hotel as a hospital. However in the drama, when asked by WH Russell whether the establishment is a hospital, Seacole draws a firm and very clear distinction between the British Hotel and Florence Nightingale’s ‘proper hospital’:

Russell: Why do you call this place the British Hotel? It’s a hospital isn’t it?
Seacole: Florence Nightingale has a hospital Mr Russell. You go and see her if you want to see a proper hospital.

Thereafter in the drama the establishment is always referred to as ‘the British Hotel’. We hear of a man (it’s not stated whether he is an officer or not) being comforted and provided with soup and blankets, and this is consistent with the description Seacole gives in her memoir of providing ‘…a mess table and comfortable quarters for sick and convalescent officers’.

While I acknowledge that there is no evidence that Mary Seacole or others referred to the British Hotel as a hospital and accept that it was first and foremost a commercial enterprise, I believe that two uses of the word ‘hospital’ would not materially mislead the young audience. It was used at the outset to indicate to them in a simple way that it was a place where injured men might be treated. As you may be aware, Florence Nightingale is given clear credit for running the ‘proper’ hospitals. The BBC Editorial Guidelines allow for such ‘due’ accuracy, and we believe that the fictional audio clip was duly accurate in using the word hospital in the way it did, before then going on to contextualise this.

Next, you raise concerns about the fictionalised visit of WH Russell and the story of the injured man ‘tucked up in the warm, drinking soup’. The dialogue and the specifics of events are of course fictional but that is in keeping with the nature of the content which is, as I’ve stated above, clearly presented as a dramatised account of history.

We know that Russell did in fact visit the British Hotel – as you say elsewhere in your letter, ‘he is listed as having left (a small) unpaid bill’. We also know from Seacole’s memoir that the two saw each other on the battlefield. While the actual dialogue between the two is fictional, it is based in historical fact and created as a way to enable the drama to unfold.

You describe part of their dialogue, the comment that Florence Nightingale’s hospital is ‘too far from the action’, as being a ‘jibe’ at Nightingale. I don’t agree with this, particularly given that Seacole has already been heard to praise Nightingale’s ‘proper hospital’ and to say, as you comment, that the British Hotel is also ‘just not close enough’. She is simply explaining her reason for going down to the battlefield to help the men.

As with the dialogue between Seacole and Russell, the story of the injured man, while it may not be literally true, is also based on Seacole and others’ accounts. For example in her memoir Seacole describes how:

‘…during the day, if any accident occurred in the neighbourhood or on the road near the British Hotel, the men generally brought the sufferer there, whence, if the hurt was serious, he would be transferred to the hospital of the Land Transport opposite.’

Russell in his description of the British Hotel says that:

‘…here she doctors and cures all manner of men with extraordinary success. She is always in attendance near the battle-field to aid the wounded, and has earned many a poor fellow’s blessings…’

John Hall, Inspector-General of Hospitals is quoted by Seacole as saying that:

‘She not only, from the knowledge she had acquired in the West Indies, was enabled to administer appropriate remedies for their ailments, but, what was of as much or more importance, she charitably furnished them with proper nourishment…’

These parts of the drama never purported to represent actual dialogue or events, but serve to tell a story that is clearly based in historical fact: at the British Hotel Mary Seacole provided food, shelter and basic treatment of injuries and ailments.

Next you raise a point about Mary Seacole’s treatment of wounded Russian soldiers. You feel that while this did happen in the drama it has been ‘grossly exaggerated’. In fact it forms only a small part of the drama – in (again imagined) dialogue between Russell and Seacole, Russell asks whether it’s true that she helps injured Russians, Seacole states that she does and asks ‘Do you think that’s wrong?’ This dialogue lasts barely 15 seconds and no claim of extensive help is made, so I don’t agree that this amounts to gross exaggeration.

Finally in your comments about the clip you refer to the section where Seacole and Sally enter Sebastopol. They manage to gain entry to the city because of a letter Sally describes from ‘the General’ which says they should be allowed in with ‘medical supplies’. A soldier realises he’s speaking to Mary Seacole and immediately lets them pass. You rightly point out in your letter that, in her memoir, Seacole describes a letter from General Garrett which refers only to ‘refreshments’.

However it’s clear that she did pass through blockades on the strength of her reputation and did carry medical supplies with her. In her memoir she tells us: ‘A line of sentries forbade all strangers passing through without orders, even to Cathcart’s Hill; but once more I found that my reputation served as a permit, and the officers relaxed the rule in my favour everywhere. So, early in the day, I was in my old spot, with my old appliances for the wounded and fatigued…’

WH Russell reports seeing Seacole with her supplies, including bandages: ‘I saw her at the assault on the Redan, at the Tchernay, at the fall of Sebastopol, laden, not with plunder, good old soul! but with wine, bandages, and food for the wounded or the prisoners.’

Here, while the drama may conflate events, as I said, we are charged with being ‘duly’ accurate, and the supporting evidence for this was that she clearly used Garrett’s letter, or one like it, to pass the guards, and arrived with refreshments and medical supplies (bandages) for the wounded. The intention was to show that Seacole was respected, determined to enter the city and that her assistance and services were welcomed and valued. We do not believe that the audience would be materially misled on this point.

I hope I’ve been able to address your concerns here and once again, thank you for taking the time to contact us. We welcome feedback about our content and always strive to ensure it’s of the highest possible quality.

Best wishes,

Rebekka Campbell
Editor, BBC Schools

To BBC School Radio

BBC School Radio
4th Floor, Bridge House
MediaCityUK
Salford M50 2BH

August 5, 2014

Dear Sirs/Mesdames

Re: BBC School Radio. History–The Victorians. 9. The Life of Mary Seacole. BBC 2010. Still available.

The BBC’s coverage of Mary Seacole has been fallacious in many respects, and this BBC School Radio “educational” material is particularly bad. Some of the comparisons with Nightingale are nasty. The whole programme should be replaced with one that meets reasonable standards of accuracy (to apply both to material on Seacole and comparisons with Nightingale).

My own publications give accurate information, with sources. They were not available when this item was created, but obviously the sources I used were. Most of the BBC’s mistakes could have been avoided simply by consulting Seacole’s Wonderful Adventures of Mrs Seacole in Many Lands (page references hee are to it).

The website and clips should be taken down promptly, to be replaced when adequate, accurate material is available.

Herewith a list of errors. Further material can be supplied to detail errors and/or provide more context. For other examples of misinformation see www.maryseacole.info/

Lesson Plan: Learning intention: We are learning to understand the life of a key historical character from the Victorian era.

1. Journey to the Crimea (approx 6 mins). This describes Nightingale as “a famous nurse who organised help for soldiers during the Crimean War,” which is true, but a gross understatement, while most statements about Seacole an overstatement or fiction.

During listening, one key fact to focus on. Key question: What obstacles did Mary Seacole overcome to serve as a nurse in the Crimean War? Instruction: Write down the things Mary Seacole overcame to fulfil her ambition. (Answers: Racism preventing travel to England from Jamaica.

However, there is no evidence that racism was the problem; since Seacole never properly applied, and did not have the hospital experience required, there were good reasons for rejecting her.

“Not allowed to serve as a nurse in the army,” but she never applied. “Had to make the dangerous journey to the Crimea on her own.” The journey was not especially dangerous, and she probably was accompanied by her two black servants.

2. The Crimean War. Before listening: one key fact to discuss….. Discussion question: What do soldiers need if they are injured fighting in a war? (To be cleaned, bandaged, kept warm, brought, food, given medicine.)

Yes, but this was the work of the doctors and nurses, not Seacole.

During listening: one question to focus on. Key question: How did Mary Seacole help the British soldiers? Instruction: Write notes to explain what Mary Seacole did to help the British soldiers. (Answers: Providing shelter and food for injured soldiers. Running a hospital in a dangerous area close to where the battles took place.)

Again, this is not true: Seacole never ran a hospital, or even worked in one so much as one day of her life.

3. After the war was over. Before listening: one key fact to discuss…. The British soldiers and Florence Nightingale’s nurses were all brought home by the British army. Discussion question: How do you think Mary Seacole should have been treated after the Crimean War?

This seems geared to fostering resentment. But why would the British Army bring a businessperson home for free? Doctors, nurses, soldiers, of course, but Seacole was not one of them. Nor did she ever complain that the army did not give her a free trip. She presented the loss of her business as the result of overstocking their supplies, not correctly estimating when the army would leave the Crimea.

During listening: one question to focus on. Key question: What happened to Mary Seacole after the Crimean war? Instruction: Write a list of the things that happened to Mary Seacole after the war was over. (Answers: The ‘British Hotel’ hospital cost money to maintain and could not be sold. Mary Seacole had no money to live on. A reporter told her story and organised collections to reward her for her service.)

However, by her own description, Seacole had some money to live on, although little. No reporter organized fundraising for her, but her officer friends did.

When she applied to the War Department in London to join Florence Nightingale as a nurse, she was turned away with the weak excuse that no more nurses were needed, although Mary was under the illusion that she was being rejected because of her colour. So Mary Seacole decided to travel to the Crimea and build her own hospital and in spite of hearing stores about the harsh conditions she would encounter in the Crimea, she was determined to carry out her plans.

The “weak excuse”? Seacole never applied (the applications are at the National Archives, Kew). Her own description of her efforts at applying show her dropping into government offices, informally. Moreover, she was late, not starting until November 30 or later (her own account says after the sinking of a supply ship, which was first reported November 30).

2. The Crimean War. Mary has built her hospital (she calls it the ‘British Hotel’) which is much closer to the battlefield than Florence Nightingale’s.

It was not a hospital but a business for officers.

She describes how she treated the wounded soldiers who needed her help.

However, this occurred on three occasions only–she missed the three major battles and the worst of the siege.

One day in 1856 a journalist called William Howard Russell from ‘The Times’ newspaper arrived at the British Hotel, wanting to write an article about Mary. Rather grudgingly she agreed.

She never said anything of the kind, and his report never refers to an interview at her business, but seeing her on the battlefield, postbattle, where he was taking notes. This account is entirely fictional. He is known to have been a customer, for he is listed as having left (a small) unpaid bill.

He discovered how well loved Mary was by the soldiers–they called her Mother Seacole.

Officers did also.

And how she would put aside fears for her own personal safety in order to treat wounded soldiers on the battlefield itself.

Again, this occurred on only three occasions–he saw one–when he was on the battlefield himself.

She would treat any wounded soldiers if they needed her help, including enemy troops.

On one occasion, according to her memoir, she helped “several” Russians.

3. After the war was over….Back in London, she and Sally, her faithful maid, were very poor.

Seacole gave her maid’s name as Mary. There is no mention of a Sally or any maid in London. Chef Alexis Soyer called Sally/Sarah her daughter in his war memoir.

A “surprise visit” from Russell is described, but Seacole herself said that she went to Lord Rokeby to ask for help and he organized the fundraising. There was a huge party but the “message of congratulation from Queen Victoria” is yet again fictional.

On the clips, a segment shows Seacole running a hospital, called the British Hotel, where she treated ordinary soldiers injured in battle, carried in from the battlefield. Yet, according to her memoir, she planned on opening a hotel, never a hospital, and it was scrapped for a restaurant/bar/takeaway/catering service, for officers. It was a hut, not a hotel, with a “canteen” available to the soldiers (p 114).

There is also a fictional visit “late in the day” by W.H. Russell, who did in fact write nice things about Seacole, but not what he is quoted as saying. Russell praised Seacole for kindness, but never called her hut a hospital.

Seacole contrasts her hospital with Nightingale’s: “Mr Russell, I just want to make a place where soldiers can come and be safe and warm. This one here with the wound in the head….” and the soldier states “I thought I was going to die, and now here I am tucked up in the warm, drinking soup.” Blatantly false, again.

Seacole is also falsely described as walking Russell to the fighting: “Look, if a man gets wounded up here near Sebastopol, he has to be taken down to our place. That’s two hours walking. We’re just not close enough.” But she had no hospital anywhere!! A jibe at Nightingale, that her hospital “is too far away from the action,” true, but hardly Nightingale’s decision: she was sent there by the War Office.

The soldier with head wounds given soup and tucked up in head is entirely fictional. Seacole missed the first three, major, battles. She was present at three, which were over in hours. She described giving first aid on the battlefield and at the entrance to a hospital, but she never took soldiers in, transported them to her “hospital” (which did not exist). Meals–and she described delicious meals–were available, for a price, to officers, not ordinary soldiers. This is a nice story–but it is untrue.

On treating “wounded enemy soldiers” it seems that Seacole’s description, on one occasion, of giving first aid to “several Russians” (166) has been grossly exaggerated. There is no mention of her taking loot from dead Russians, including cutting off their buttons as souvenirs (167). One Russian officer gave her a ring for her kindness. She was kind, but all this exaggerates it.

On entering Sebastopol, the letter by General Garrett was not to bring medicines, but, “to pass Mrs Seacole and attendants with refreshments for officers and soldiers” (173). She described a convivial group bringing muleloads to the fallen city, and did not describe treating any wounded.

The “Follow up and extension activity” is also wrong. The Crimean War did not begin in 1853 (not for the French and British), and Seacole was nowhere near the Crimea until March or so 1855, not 1854-56. She was not “ignored at first,” but enjoyed celebrity immediately after the war. The children are to work on a timeline, but are given incorrect dates!

Yours sincerely

Lynn McDonald, PhD, LLD (hon)
Professor emerita

To the Complaints Administrator, OCR Examinations

To the Complaints Administrator, Oxford Cambridge and RSA Examinations (OCR)

Charlotte Taylor, Complaints Administrator
Oxford Cambridge and RSA Examinations
Progress House, Westwood Way
Coventry CV4 BJ0

9 July 2014

Dear Ms Taylor

As per our introductory letter of 30 June 2014, we have been researching the teaching of Mary Seacole in English schools, Year 2 and History GCSE, particularly looking at connections or comparisons with Florence Nightingale. We did not do a study of teaching materials on Florence Nightingale per se, but have observations on coverage of her in the OCR Medicine Through Time.

We are concerned with the enormous amount of misinformation available about the life of Mary Seacole, produced initially by a campaign for her, but now echoed as fact in books both for pupils and teachers, websites and museums (which do school visits). We have yet to find a British source that gives a fair and accurate portrayal of her life. We would be grateful if you know of any and would apprise us of them.

Since there is no standardized curriculum in the U.K. we have had to rely on internet and library searches. Short of a fully funded study, which would require some years to complete, a comprehensive overview is not possible. However, we have found a substantial number of examples of schools, books for children, resource books for teachers, teaching resources and internet sites that cause grave concern. Misinformation embellishing Seacole’s work and minimizing Nightingale’s is routine, if motivated by the desirable end of racial and cultural diversity.

Copies of four articles (two of them peer-reviewed) and a book on Seacole are included. Links to internet sources on them are also available: www.maryseacole.info

Herewith a brief overview of our findings. Appendices follow on schoolbooks and school websites. Photocopies of the covers of several children’s books are attached, a few sample pages from inside, and one whole children’s book, as illustrations.

1. Schoolbooks

Fourteen books for children have been published on Mary Seacole, all of them with substantial errors of fact, all of them embellishing her achievements, and most with the evident end of making her Florence Nightingale’s equal, sometimes with a hint that she was better or braver. Several of these books also present excellent background information on the period, or on other social issues, but even these incorporate flagrant errors.

Details of the factual errors are available for all on a website and a printed copy is provided as Appendix 1: www.maryseacole.info/

  • Castor 1999 48 pp
  • Collicott 1992 [1991] 16 pp
  • Collicott 2003 32 pp
  • Cooke 2007 31 pp
  • Godwin 2001 48 pp
  • Harrison 2007 24 pp
  • Huntley 1993 63 pp
  • Lynch 2006 32 pp
  • Malam 1999 24 pp
  • Moorcroft and Magnusson 1998 24 pp
  • Ridley 2009 24 pp
  • Vincent and de la Mare 1985 16 pp
  • Williams 2003 32 pp
  • Williams 2009 56 pp.

Not one of these books mentions any of the known negatives about Seacole’s life, that she acknowledged “lamentable blunders” in her remedies, used toxic substances (mercury chloride and lead acetate), never submitted an application to become a war nurse and missed the first three battles of the war (she was in London attending to her gold mining stocks), or that she took loot from the bodies of dead Russian soldiers and accepted loot stolen by French soldiers from Sebastopol churches. None of these books notes that Seacole was a prosperous Jamaican, who employed blacks and used racial slurs (on Turks as well as “niggers”). All of this is perfectly clear in her own engaging memoir, Wonderful Adventures of Mrs Seacole in Many Lands (Oxford University Press 1988), reference to which would refute most of the false claims made by Seacole’s campaigners of today.

Some of the books have errors in such basic facts as the year the Crimean War started, and her place of death (England, not Jamaica). Some avoid any mention of Nightingale, while those that do acknowledge her describe her as another or an important nurse; one has Seacole helping her.

In their keenness to promote racial equality, such embarrassing facts are ignored as that Seacole distanced herself from her black heritage: blacks were always others, some her employees. In (nicely) telling off an American Southerner, she distanced herself, saying that if her complexion “had been as dark as any nigger’s” (Wonderful Adventures p 48).

A major error running across all the books is the replacement of officers, who were Seacole’s customers, with ordinary soldiers, whom she is said to have nursed, even in her own hospital (which was a club for officers). Soldiers could never have afforded her luxury goods or employed her catering services. None of the authors seems to have realized that, even if Seacole had been serving nourishing food to ordinary soldiers, she could hardly have made a dent in feeding the tens of thousands of soldiers stationed there. (Nightingale made it her mission to get nutrition improved for ordinary soldiers).

The books all use illustrations, some of them many times, that give a false picture of Seacole. Often they depict her as a young NHS nurse. Some show pictures of medals said to be hers (she won none of them).

Some of the books (notably Moorcroft and Magnusson) also contain some good material, but even where the information is correct, the overall impression given is suspect, for example, their timeline, which lists the birth of Mary Seacole with Julius Caesar invading Britain, the crucifixion of Jesus, the birth of Muhammad, the Norman invasion, Christopher Columbus’s voyage to the New World and (after Seacole’s birth), the First World War, the Second World War, and the first moon landing. Was her birth really as important as all these other events?

2. Books for teachers

Two books for teachers also provide misinformation: Rosemary Turner-Bisset and Emily Beadle, “History” in Dave Hill and Mike Cole, eds., Equality in the Secondary School: Promoting Good Practice Across the Curriculum 151-52), which states that “both women were involved in caring for the sick and injured during the Crimean War,” but held that differences in their “social and cultural backgrounds” accounted for differences in how they were treated later by British society, not any difference in their contributions. (2) Dave Hill and Leena Helavaara Robertson, eds., Equality in the Primary School: Promoting Good Practice 154, which proposes that teachers “adapt the current scheme of work on Florence Nightingale to include Mary Seacole,” to ask why Seacole is not equally remembered for contributions to the development of a profession, hospital safety, army reforms, status of women, etc.

3. School websites

Internet searches turned up over xx schools which had some material on Seacole, often also on Nightingale. These include secondary schools, primary and infant, Church of England, Roman Catholic and secular, foundation schools and academies, and one elite girls’ boarding school.

At the primary level, Seacole is typically made into a “good nurse,” at the least, sometimes “pioneer nurse,” sometimes with heroism added. On the website for Coteford Infant School, for example, children are said to order “key events in the life of Florence Nightingale and Mary Seacole,” and “learn about the improvements that were made to hospitals,” although Seacole made none, and never worked in one. She did act as a volunteer visitor, taking around books and papers for the patients, not the same thing as founding professional nursing or reforming hospitals. The children are then to apply this information to hospitals today, before the two “helped to bring about changes.” This is a clear transfer of the work that Nightingale did to Seacole, beginning in the Crimean War and continuing for decades later, to make hospitals safer.

In Wroughton Infant School a Mary Seacole Assembly linked Seacole with “Great Britons,” for the “incredible bravery” that she endured “whilst overcoming racism.” A picture of the children shows them wearing nurses’ uniforms-one presumably was Seacole, the other her “contemporary,” Florence Nightingale.

In Hertfordshire, schools have the use of a Seacole Year 2 trunk, so that the children can compare the work of the two women. They then had to write “as if they were Mary entering the battlefield and using some of the things in the trunk. O wonderful results!” The Seacole picture shown has her proudly wearing three medals, none of which she won, which is not stated.

Some school websites add new errors to the large storehouse of mis-statements already in circulation. Sanfield Close Primary School, for example, specified that both women were important in science. Nightingale’s importance in science is well documented, notably her statistical analyses post-Crimea, which are not mentioned on any website. The website did not specify any scientific advances made by Seacole, and we know of none.

At the primary level, the two women tend to be treated as equals-Nightingale is not attacked, but her enormous contributions are simply omitted. Sometimes the two are described as working together, while Seacole’s store/restaurant was 300 miles away from Nightingale’s Barrack Hospital. Often Nightingale is (incorrectly) blamed for Seacole’s rejection as a nurse.

At the secondary level further complications arise owing to material for History GCSE papers, noted further below.

Many school websites list other websites as “resources,” which, however, are themselves full of factual errors. The worst is the BBC, for which numerous complaints have been made, one of which, “Horrible Histories,” is currently under appeal. One error is the claim that Nightingale turned down Seacole 4 times as a nurse (she did not once), in a scene which makes Nightingale out to be a racist, while Seacole is portrayed, by an actress, as a young, Jamaican NHS nurse.

Other websites with much misinformation are the Science Museum, London (to whom a complaint has been made, and assurances given of correction); the National Army Museum; the Museum of London; Gunnersbury Park Museum and the Thackray Medical Museum, Leeds. These museums are often used for school visits.

It is gratifying to see that the U.K. National Archives and the U.S. National Geographic both revised their websites when errors were pointed out to them.

4. School events

Schools put on performances and invite parents and other community members to see what they are teaching on Seacole (sometimes on both her and Nightingale). Canonbury School, Islington, for example, the school attended by Mayor Boris Johnson’s daughter, had her playing Queen Victoria pinning medals on the two, with exaggerated praise (see Boris Johnson’s “Florence Nightingale and Mary Seacole: Who pioneered Nursing” in his Johnson’s Life of London: The People Who Made the City That Made the World 284).

5. OCR Medicine and Health Through Time

Given the status of this document its errors are of great concern. There are blogs and resource books for teachers on it, all of which are erroneous in their presentation on Seacole and some on both women.

According to the 2010 Mark Scheme (p 10), pupils are asked “4(a) Briefly describe the career of Mary Seacole.
Points might include worked as nurse/doctor in Jamaica, worked as a midwife, dealt with cholera in Panama, went to Britain and volunteered to go to Crimea, went at own expense, set up the ‘British Hospital,’ nursed soldiers, returned to Britain bankrupt, newspaper held an appeal for her, benefit concert held for her.”

Only one of these points, however, is correct-Seacole did return to Britain bankrupt, and for one other the error is minor-the appeal for her was organized by officers, not newspapers. The “British Hospital” point is a flagrant error, when even “British Hotel” is an exaggeration, for her restaurant/bar/store/takeaway/catering service. The “nurse/doctor” credit is far from the businesswoman/doctress occupation Seacole herself described in her memoir. She did not work as a midwife. Seacole did indeed deal with cholera in Jamaica, but not successfully.

“Medicine Through Time: How Did Florence Nightingale and Mary Seacole Improve Public Health?” states that Nightingale had genius, even that she reduced the wounded death rate from 40% to 2% (we would give most of this credit to the Sanitary Commission sent out to the Crimean War, with Nightingale assisting). It notes her 800-page analysis of Crimean War mortality, and her shorter, Notes on Nursing. This it blames, strangely, for paying “little notice to Pasteur’s Germ Theory,” which did not exist when she wrote the book. It asserts that Mary Seacole was also an “influential nurse in Crimean War: knowledgeable healer and midwife,” and credits her with setting up the “‘British Hotel,’ providing food and drinks to soldiers. Treated sickness and went to battlefield to help soldiers.” Then, when she returned, “Nobody tried to learn from her medical skills due to her race and lack of money.”

Folkstone Girls’ School cited Medicine Through Time on its website, and asked the following questions, which seem aimed at eliciting sympathy for Seacole and resentment for her treatment:

2: Developments in Nursing. Questions and answers.
13. What was the name of the contemporary of Florence Nightingale who arguable [y] did as much for nursing during the Crimean War? Mary Seacole.
14. Who helped to finance Mary Seacole’s work? No one, she had to fund herself.
15. What was the name given to the hostel she set up where she nursed soldiers and served them hot drinks and food? British Hotel.

However, Seacole never established a hostel for nursing wither soldiers or officers, while the drink and food was for officers, for purchase.

Proposed action

  1. Florence Nightingale and Mary Seacole should not be taught together at any level; their lives and work were too different.
  2. Teaching on Nightingale at the senior level should include were contributions to statistics and research, hospital reform, public health care generally, and the later emergence of the NHS more particularly, and India.
  3. Medicine and Health Through Time for the History GCSE requires revision in its coverage of both Nightingale and Seacole.
  4. Teaching on Seacole at every level should respect known facts about her life and contribution; she was an independent woman, adventurous, an intrepid traveller, a businesswoman (e.g., Panama during the California Gold Rush), writer of a valuable travel memoir, a kind and compassionate person, to avoid such false claims as that she saved lives and pioneered nursing or health care.
  5. Until suitable material on Seacole, print and other, are produced, teaching on her should be suspended. OCR should issue a warning that the available material on her now is unreliable and should not be used.

We would be happy to answer any questions or provide further information as needed.

Appendices 1 and 2

From Mary Seacole: The Making of the Myth
Covers and pages of children’s books and 1 children’s book

Appendix 1: Books for children on Seacole (in alphabetical order)

Castor, Harriet. Mary Seacole. New York: Franklin Watts 1999.

This book has an especially dishonest cover, depicting a young Seacole in a blue and white nurse’s uniform, looking after a wounded soldier at his bedside (not something that ever happened, or which she ever claimed to have done in her book). The fictions continue with Seacole searching “the battlefields for wounded and dying men, even while the guns were still firing,” again quite beyond her own description of aid given post-battle, on three occasions, to be precise.

The book credits both Seacole and Nightingale with saving “many soldiers’ lives,” but regrets that Nightingale became more famous, the result of her being white and rich, according to Castor, who did not acknowledge any significant work that Nightingale did.

Collicott, Sylvia. Mary Seacole. Aylesbury Bucks: Ginn History 1992. (See comments on her 2003 book)

Collicott, Sylvia L. The Story of Mary Seacole. London: Macmillan Education 2003.

This is one of the most erroneous children’s books, although it claims, on the inside cover, to tell the “true story” of Mary Seacole. Nightingale is not mentioned in it, but her work is attributed to Seacole. It makes Seacole out to be a reformer, travelling to many countries to make things better. There is no mention of her acknowledging “blunders” but she is constantly referred to as a good nurse. The tale has officers in London turning Seacole down for a nurse’s job (not her story, or one for which there is any evidence).

The book has Seacole building a kitchen “so that she could cook good for the soldiers,” then a place where they “could eat their food” (14), although Seacole herself described a hut that served as a restaurant/bar/catering service for officers, not soldiers, who could not have paid her prices. Nor did ordinary soldiers socialize with officers.

Next Collicott has Seacole (fictionally ) building “a hospital near her kitchen so that she could treat the soldiers’ wounds and diseases” (14). Seacole herself is portrayed as young and slim-just the thing for a hard working nurse, but she was middle-aged and stout in reality, as a restaurant proprietress and cook would often be.

Cooke, Trish and Axworthy, Anni. Hoorah for Mary Seacole. London: Franklin Watts 2007.

The book cover shows Seacole on the battlefield, wearing a white, nurse’s type hat (not her usual bonnet with ribbons), and wearing an apron, giving water to a bandaged soldier, not a scene she ever described in her own memoir. The authors acknowledge that the characters in the book are made up, but that they are “based on real events in history,” and then proceeds to give such erroneous statements as:

4: “She set up her own hospital in Kingston Town to care for the sick and wounded British soldiers,” when she ran a boarding house for officers, not for soldiers, and not a hospital at all. It incorrectly states that Seacole “decided to go to the Crimea to help” when the war broke out, but she only decided months later, when she was in London on her gold business. “She gave medicines to the injured soldiers and even went out across the battlefield to treat them,” an exaggeration.

Godwin, Sam. Mary Seacole: A Story from the Crimean War. London: Hodder Wayland 2001.

This book likens Seacole to Nightingale. In numerous illustrations, it shows Seacole as a nurse, wearing a white bonnet looking after a soldier on the battlefield. Examples of erroneous claims:

33: “Every morning Mrs Seacole woke me up before dawn. Together, we plucked the chickens, made coffee for the soldiers and sold goods in the shop. After lunch, we’d go to nurse the wounded in the hospital across the road.”
34: “Sometimes Mrs Seacole would saddle her old donkey and ride to the battlefield with medicine and food. More than once I begged her to take me with her but she always refused.”
38: Mrs Seacole got off her donkey at once, sewed up wounds, bandaged broken limbs, holding medicine bottles to soldier’s lips, “as we made our way through the sea of twisted bodies”
40: “All around us, cannonballs ploughed into the soil. Bullets flew past our ears but Mrs Seacole never flinched.”

Harrison, Paul. Who Was Mary Seacole? London: Wayland 2007.

Seacole’s kindness to soldiers is yet again exaggerated into feats of bravery on the battlefield. Her hut, which served food and drink to officers, here becomes “a boarding house, canteen and a general store where troops could buy supplies” (p 14). A picture has Seacole at the bedside of a soldier, although she never worked in any army hospital.

15: “Mary also nursed injured soldiers-even if that meant going onto the battlefield while the fighting was going on. Florence Nightingale, the famous British nurse, did not do this.” In fact no nurses, nor Seacole, went onto the battlefields during the fighting. While Nightingale was invited to Balmoral Castle to meet Queen Victoria and Prince Albert, Harrison has Seacole meeting them, indeed becoming friends and meeting often!

Huntley, Eric L. Two Lives: Florence Nightingale and Mary Seacole. London: Bogle-L’Ouverture 1993.

Fictional claims include Seacole developing a medicine which cured yellow fever and cholera” (43) and being so well known for this that she was put in charge “of all the medical staff on the island when yellow fever broke out in 1853,” although she made no claims for yellow fever successes, and noted being asked to bring nurses for an epidemic, but not doing so.

Incorrect statements continue during the Crimean War, such as the statement that Nightingale recorded a meeting with her (Seacole described their meeting, but Nightingale made no mention of it). Seacole is said to have set up the British Hotel in a house near Sebastopol (in fact a hut), where she gave tea, bandages and medicines, while she described no giving away of tea, the medicines were herbal remedies of unknown ingredients and the major battles were over when she opened shop. The author (incorrectly) claims three medals given her after the war (12).

Lynch, Emma. The Life of Mary Seacole. Oxford: Heinemann 2006.

This book fictionalizes Seacole in many respects, having her run “a shop, a restaurant and a small hospital” where she “nursed the soldiers from 5 a.m. until midday,” after which she worked in the store until 8 p.m.” It also has her working with doctors, and names W.H. Russell, the war correspondent, as a doctor. Seacole is said to have given “food and drinks to soldiers on their way into battle,” not a claim she ever made.

The fictions continue post-Crimea, to raising the status of nursing, work which Nightingale did. Lynch only gave passing mention to Nightingale as “a famous British nurse who helped in the Crimean War,” A picture of “the first training school for British nurses,” Nightingale’s, is shown, without any mention that it was hers.

Malam, John. Mary Seacole. London: Evans Brothers 1999.

In this book Seacole becomes “one of the first true nurses,”
19: “She was given medals to thank her for looking after the soldiers.” Malam regrets that Seacole was left out of the Crimean memorial in Waterloo Place (23), where the statues of Florence Nightingale and Sidney Herbert are erected.

Discussion topics are given: “Imagine running a store for the soldiers like Mary did. What would the soldiers want to buy?” except that Seacole’s store was for officers, and consisted mainly of luxury foods and wines. “What do you think the differences are between being a nurse during Mary’s time and being a nurse today?” a misleading inquiry since Seacole was not a nurse at any time. A suggested activity is to compare Mary Seacole’s life with that of Florence Nightingale,” which implies common ground, when their work and contributions were entirely different-and they probably only met for 5 minutes.

Moorcroft, Christine and Magnusson, Magnus. Mary Seacole 1805-1881. London: Channel Four Learning Ltd 1998.

This book has some excellent historical background, but mythologizes Seacole beginning with the cover, which has her in a blue and white nurse’s uniform, at the bedside of a wounded soldier. The fictional story of her going to London to volunteer is told, but she is turned down. What she did in the war is greatly embellished, up to the fiction of medals being awarded to her for her work. There is a picture of two medals, but she won none.

Nightingale gets a mention as “a well-known nurse who was also in the Crimea.”

Ridley, Sarah. Mary Seacole and the Crimean War. London: Franklin Watts 2009.

The book cover shows a Seacole photograph wearing three medals. It is in the series History Makers.

12: “Mary decided she must go and nurse the soldiers in the Crimea. She sailed to London and hoped to be sent out to join Florence Nightingale,” although Seacole’s own account has attendance to her gold stocks as the purpose of her trip to London. Her late (informal) application is not acknowledged.
13: “Sadly, Mary’s help was rejected and she realised that the colour of her skin was stopping people from trusting her,”
15: “At the British Hotel, Mary sold food, useful goods and hot meals, and rented rooms to people. She nursed the soldiers’ wounds and treated their illnesses.” But, according to her own account, her customers were officers and she rented rooms to nobody. She sold remedies over the counter, not quite treating illnesses, which were far less numerous, in any event, given her late arrival.
18: “Sometimes she packed up food and medicines and went to the battlefields to care for wounded soldiers,” an exaggeration for the three occasions she went to the battlefield, when the food and drink were mainly for spectators, for purchase. A caption for a picture likens her nursing on the battlefield to that of the nuns, although they did not nurse on the battlefield either (but they nursed in hospitals, which she did not).

Vincent, Denis and De la Mare, Michael. Mary Seacole. London: Macmillan Education 1990 [1985].

This book has reading tests. The first is correct in describing the lack of food and mouldy food the soldiers had, but has the war starting a year earlier than it did. Seacole is shown on the cover in a blue and white nurse’s uniform.

2: Seacole’s British Hotel is described as a place where soldiers “could purchase good cooked food” which was for officers.
4: Seacole’s mother is said to have run a boarding house for soldiers, when it was for a variety of customers, in the case of the army and navy, officers only. Further, Seacole “looked after many people who had yellow fever, even nursing them in her own home,” not a claim she ever made in her book. “She also organised nurses for the British army which was stationed in Kingston,” while she stated only that she was asked to do this, but did not.
5: has Seacole asking Nightingale for a job nursing in the hospital, when her own account says that she asked for a bed for the night, and got it.
8: “Most of the people who resided at the hotel were sick or wounded soldiers. They were looked after very well.” Seacole made it clear that no one resided at her hut, which was effectively a club, with a store on the side, for officers. “For soldiers who were ill Mary prepared special food. She made things that were easy to consume,” but her customers were officers, and not ill. For some weeks before her hut opened, she provided tea, cake and lemonade to soldiers waiting transport to the war hospitals, but did not give treatment.
10: “Sometimes she was allowed to go into the hospitals. She did not jut nurse the soldiers, she talked to them as well, trying to cheer them up. Often she st with soldiers who were dying.” In her memoir, she described visiting at the closest hospital and probably she did cheer up the soldiers, although she described no such scenes. She noted that the doctors did not allow her to nurse in any hospital.
13: Soldiers are said to have collected money for Seacole, and “even held a music festival” for her, but the collection and festival was organized by her officer-customers.

Williams, Brian. The Life and World of Mary Seacole. Oxford: Heinemann 2003. This author has since published a second edition of the book. Both have lots of factual errors. (See the next comments).

Williams, Brian. Mary Seacole. Harlow: Heinemann 2009.

There is some good background in this book, but a lot that is simply dead wrong. Seacole did not write to the war minister for a job (16), He was a Mr Sidney Herbert (in the book promoted into “Sir Sidney”). She never submitted the required written application. She did not pack and take ship when she heard about the war (16), but proceeded to Panama on her gold business. The book is mistaken about soldiers having to steal their food as the army did not provide it (21). The army did provide food, although not nutritious food, a matter Nightingale worked to change. Seacole’s hut was for luxury items for officers, for sale at prices ordinary soldiers could not afford.

Seacole did not hand out food and drinks to soldiers as they marched off to battle (22)-she missed the three most important ones-but sold food and drinks to spectators, at three later battles.

The cover (see picture) reproduces the bust of her which shows her proudly wearing 3 medals she did not win, shows it again, and yet another picture of her wearing medals she did not win, on the inside. The text explicitly states that she won 3 medals (29).

Appendix 2, School websites (in alphabetical order)

(1) Secondary Schools

Birchfield Community School, Birmingham. This website has some correct points on it, including a picture of Seacole without medals. However, it is incorrect that “she fulfilled her ambition to nurse soldiers in the Crimean war, even though she had been denied the opportunity of to go with Florence Nightingale.” She is said to have tended to “wounded servicemen,” when her business was with officers, largely fit. She even becomes “one of the unsung heroines of British history,” “one of the two famous women who aided British troops in the Crimea,” when she was running a business for officers; Nightingale’s mission was for ordinary soldiers.

The website incorrectly has Seacole acting after she “heard of the collapse of the British nursing system in the Crimea and headed for London in 1845,” presumably a typo for 1854, but the more basic problem is that she only decided to go when in London, on her gold business. She is said to have applied to the War Office, but she never submitted an application, but instead dropped in informally to apply, late at that. There is a tone of resentment that “her contemporary, Florence Nightingale, has been lionised and is renowned and celebrated to this day. Mary Seacole however today remains largely forgotten.”

Dixons Allerton Academy, Rhodesway, Bradford. This website has a Seacole section under Diversity/Achievement. The picture shows Mrs Seacole wearing medals she did not win. While some of the description is correct, she is called ” Jamaican nurse who cared for British soldiers in the Crimean War,” but whose offers to be sent were refused, “despite her experience.” It is correct that she attributed her rejection to racial prejudice, but it should be acknowledged that she never properly applied, and even her informal (verbal) request to be sent was late (the first team was already at work there and the second about to leave).

Also incorrect, the website has her “British Hotel” selling “food, supplies and her medicines,” without acknowledging that the food and supplies were for officers, and the ingredients of her medicines unnamed, except one for cholera, which included toxic substances.

Folkestone School for Girls. The History Dept provides a Revision Guide for the OCR Medicine Through Time: How Did Florence Nightingale and Mary Seacole Improve Public Health? Errors and exaggerations in it are the same as for Medicine Through Time, noted above.

Heathfield School, Ascot, Berks. This girls’ boarding school has a “Seacole House,” along with three others: Jane Austen, Dame Nanette de Valois (the ballerina) and Mary Somerville. The standard misinformation about Seacole is provided, “a pioneering nurse and heroine of the Crimean War,” who “learned her nursing skills from her mother,” but “was refused a post as an army nurse because of the colour of her skin.” In the Crimea, she is said to have “established the British Hotel,” where she “nursed the sick and dying soldiers.” Her own account, however, makes it clear that her customers were officers, and that she nursed no one there, although she did sell her remedies to (relatively healthy) walk-ins. “Her reputation,” the site continues, “rivalled that of Florence Nightingale yet her story is far less well known.” Seacole was indeed a celebrity in her time, but her reputation hardly rivalled Nightingale’s, who was celebrated for her contributions to nursing, as founder, statistics (the first woman member of the Royal Statistical Society), hospital reform and much reform in public administration. Nightingale’s achievements were not then attributed to Seacole, as they are now.

Highgate Wood School, Haringey, London. The school magazine describes how the house names were selected by vote, with Seacole winning, along with Leonardo da Vinci and Thomas Edison. She is said to have learned “medicine” from her mother, then overcoming “indifference and prejudice to nurse the sick and dying in Jamaica, Panama and, most famously, the Crimea.” Her mother, however, was not medically trained, but a traditional herbalist.

Highsted Grammar School, Sittingbourne, Kent. Its Prospectus has Mary Seacole at the top of its list of “influential” women, after whom its houses are named, with Coco Chanel, George Eliot, Rosalind Franklin, Helen Keller and Anita Roddick. It asks: Which influential woman are you? You are Mary Seacole. A natural carer, you look after those around you and try to improve the situation for the better.”

John Roan School, Greenwich. The school has a Seacole House, also with others named after Leonardo Da Vinci, Charles Darwin and Marie Stopes, “people who have had a quite a profound impact on history.” What impact did Seacole have on history akin to that of Da Vinci, Darwin or Stopes?

Malbank School and Sixth Form College, Nantwich, Cheshire. The website, under Unsung Hero (97), has a picture of Seacole and describes her as a “Jamaican-born British nurse best known for her involvement in the Crimean War, lauded in her lifetime alongside Florence Nightingale, but then largely forgotten for almost a century.” Seacole was a celebrity and “much lauded” in her lifetime, but was hardly a “British nurse” for she was not a nurse. She retired in England, but did not work there, apart from an early period when she sold Jamaican pickles and preserves. She was seldom linked to Nightingale after the war, as the differences in work and contribution were obvious. No information is provided on Nightingale.

Oxford Spires Academy, Oxford, has a Seacole House, however no details are given as to its teaching on Seacole.

Prendergast Vale College. The website gives Medicine Through Time Revision notes from a website: revisegcsehistory.co.uk. The points on Nightingale minimize her contribution, while those on Seacole exaggerate hers. Seacole is said to have come from “a poor background in Jamaica,” when she was from the propertied class and was a successful businesswoman. She is said to have volunteered to nurse in the Crimean War, but was rejected, although she never formally applied. Her exploits nursing “soldiers on the battlefields” are exaggerated. The “British Hotel” she built was only a hut, and that for officers. Support for her back in England is credited to “press interest,” when the major force was officers, who were her friends and customers.

Springwood High School, King’s Lynn, Norfolk. A blog on GCSE History encourages cross references to other sources. Using the Punch cartoon on Seacole as “Vivandiere,” it asks why it was published. “Who was more important in the history of medicine, Florence Nightingale or Mary Seacole? Explain your answer.” A letter Nightingale wrote critical about Seacole, but also with some praise, is reported, but this is the only material written by Nightingale-nothing is said of her years of work founding nursing, reforming hospitals, extending nursing throughout the world, working on health in India and her visionary advocacy of quality health care even for the poorest.

There are numerous factual errors, such as Seacole’s mother having a “boarding house for sick soldiers” when she ran one for (largely well) officers. Seacole is said to have “set up a medical store and hostel in the Crimea, which she called the British Hotel, where soldiers could obtain medicines,” all of which is contradicted by her own account. “She also tended the wounded on the battlefield,” although this occurred only on 3 occasions (July 18, August 16 and September 8 1855). The website has her meeting Florence Nightingale “on several occasions, but Florence did not invite her to join her team of nurses.” Her own memoir, however, describes only one meeting, when Seacole did not apply for a job, as she was en route to join her business partner in the Crimea, supplies all ordered and also en route.

Seacole is given a plan she never mentioned in her memoir, that she gave “riotous parties” to make money to pay for food and drink for the “wounded soldiers in the front line.” But where was the “front line” in the Crimean War? The trenches could be considered the “front line,” but neither she nor the nurses went into them. Seacole did give out what aid she had to soldiers and officers post-battle on 3 occasions, for which she deserves great credit, but all these books and websites grossly exaggerate those kindnesses, both in number and significance in saving lives.

St Dominic’s High School for Girls, Brewood, near Wolverhampton. The website describes a Black History Month celebration with, as “heroes,” Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, Mary Seacole, Mahatma Ghandi and Mary Wollstonecroft. However, although she did believe in racial equality, Seacole was no active reformer, demonstrator or writer as the others were.

Sutton Coldfield Grammar School for Girls, near Birmingham. Its website on the History of Medicine cites museum resources to be used, and recommends “good clips” on the BBC‘s “Horrible Histories,” a youtube with flagrantly inaccurate accusations against Nightingale and a thoroughly false depiction of Seacole.

Waldegrave School for Girls, Twickenham, has a Seacole House. The website states: “Mary Seacole was a nurse from Jamaica. Hearing of the terrible conditions in the Crimean War and knowing more than most about wounds and infection control, she decided to travel to London to offer her help.” Yet her own account states that concern over her unprofitable gold stocks brought her to London. In another error, Nightingale is incorrectly said to have “turned her down” on her arrival. Seacole’s own account acknowledges that she did not even decide to go until after Nightingale had left. Further embellishments/fictions have Seacole “treating wounded soldiers from both sides, often on the battlefield whilst under fire.”

Wallington High School for Girls, Sutton. One of its 7 houses is named after Seacole: each is named after “an influential woman,” the others being Athena, Bronte, Johnson Sharman, Pankhurst and Curie.

(2) Primary Schools/Infant Schools

Bentley St Paul’s Church of England Primary School, Brentwood, Essex. Year 2 pupils had a Special Visitor who came to talk to the class about the nurses in the Crimean War. Girls acted the parts of Florence Nightingale and Mary Seacole, re-enacting “life in hospitals for the injured British and Russian soldiers.” Other children were give roles as nurses and orderlies, British and Russian soldiers. Both women were welcomed home as heroines, but no distinction seems to have been made as to what their respective roles were there.

Carlisle Infant School, Hampton, Middlesex. The brief entry notes a trip to a museum and a workshop about the “amazing life” of Seacole. The children are dressed in white nurse’s caps, although Seacole never wore a nursing cap as she was not a nurse. She did lead an “amazing life,” which is worth celebrating, on its own terms.

Christ Church Church of England Primary School, Leigh, Lancs. Year 2 children are to “explore the life of Florence Nightingale and Mary Seacole and their input to the hospitals we have today,” although Seacole made none whatsoever, while Nightingale’s “input” was massive and is still felt.

Christ the Saviour Church of England Primary School, Broadway, Ealing. Year 2 children “spent the day learning about Victorian life and met Mary Seacole,” who “travelled from Jamaica to the Crimea to help injured soldiers,” which she did not (she travelled from Panama to London to look after her gold stocks, then went to the Crimea to start a business for officers). “Through her hard work and dedication she helped save many lives,” an exaggeration for her undoubted acts of kindness, which did not save lives, nor did she ever claim that they did.

Church Lane Primary School, Sleaford, Lincs. For Black History Month, “Year 2 spent time discussing Mary Seacole. They learnt about the amazing work she did as a nurse and how she changed the way people thought about black women.” Since she did not herself identify as a black person, praised her Scottish roots and overlooked the African, it is not obvious how she would change how people thought about blacks. She, like white Jamaicans, employed blacks as servants. She travelled with 2 black employees, one her maid. Her employment of blacks, and sometimes disparaging remarks about blacks, are mentioned in none of the books or websites.

Coteford Infant School, Pinner, Middlesex. A newsletter states that: “The children will be ordering key events in the life of Florence Nightingale and Mary Seacole. They will also learn about the improvements that were made to hospitals and compare hospitals today and before Florence Nightingale and Mary Seacole helped to bring about changes.” Improving hospitals, however, was Nightingale’s mission for decades, at which she was greatly successful, but never Seacole’s.

Cradley Church of England Primary School, Halesowen, West Midlands. Year 2: “In our History topic we will be learning about Famous People in Britain’s past: Florence Nightingale, Mary Seacole, Queen Elizabeth I and Christopher Columbus.” No details as to their respective merits are given.

Crownfield Junior School, Romford, Essex. In the website’s Black History Month, “Famous Black People” are shown: Nelson Mandela, Mary Seacole and Dr Martin Luther King. Her picture is placed beside notes on “History of Slavery,” although she was born and lived as a free woman. The links with King and Mandela are especially misleading as Seacole did not identify as a black (she was three quarters white), praised her Scottish roots and never mentioned any Africa connection. She believed in racial equality, but is not known ever to have worked for it. The website further describes her as “a very successful nurse during the Crimean War.”

Cyril Jackson School, Limehouse. Primary Year 2 pupils recreated the battlefields of the Crimean War. Children commented: “Mary Seacole was so brave! but she missed the 3 first, major, battles and the first terrible winter of the siege. She was only on the battlefield, according to her own memoir, on 3 later occasions, in each case post-battle.

Eleanor Palmer Primary School, Camden. This website has a large picture of the proposed statue of Seacole, who is described as having set up a “‘British Hotel’ behind the lines during the Crimean War,” and assisting the battlefield wounded, although she was refused by the War Office-her late and only informal application is not noted. After the war, “service personnel” are credited with raising money for her, when it was her officer friends. The website credits her with winning medals, even a Russian medal, although she won none.

Farnborough Grange Nursery and Infant School, Hants. “Triumph for a War Heroine.” The pupils wrote a poem to celebrate Seacole, which has her helping soldiers fight disease, and later dying poor and alone (she may have died alone, but she was prosperous).

Gladstone Primary School. Gladstone St., Peterborough. Its website for Year 2 refers uncritically to the erroneous BBC Learning-Famous People website. It invites viewers to “Find out about the lives of Mary Seacole and Florence Nightingale,” without any apparent recognition of how different they were, or that the BBC is not a reliable source on either.

Hayward’s Primary School. East St., Crediton, Devon. Its website, “The Life and Works of Mary Seacole,” describes Seacole as “a Jamaican peasant girl,” when she was a property-owning businesswoman. She is said to have “popped off to Crimea and requested that she could work with Florence Nightingale. Florence refused,” contrary to Seacole’s own account of her meeting with Nightingale. The website credits Seacole with building “a hospice herself,” to which she “brought people from the battlefield,” when it was a hut that she had built, to which officers came for food, drink and catering services (it was not a hospital, hospice or hostel). It further credits her with becoming “a pioneer,” without saying what she pioneered, and receiving “three medals,” which she never claimed-although she did wear medals not her own.

Higham Ferrers Nursery and Infant School, Northhants. The Year 2 curriculum provides information for the summer term on “famous people,” to start “by studying the life of Mary Seacole,” who is called “a nurse in the Crimen War similar to Florence Nightingale.” They will look at “key events of Mary Seacole’s life and when she lived in relation to us, plotting events onto a time line. Children will learn how historical figures are remembered and design a memorial for her.”

Hildenborough Church of England Primary School. Nightingale and Seacole are treated together in Term 4. The website states that the children will focus on:

  • Learning about the life and work of both Florence Nightingale and Mary Seacole….
  • Finding out about the conditions for soldiers during the Crimean War.
  • Exploring the impact of Florence Nightingale and Mary Seacole’s work….

They will consider materials for bandage materials, a subject certainly appropriate for Nightingale, as are the points on soldiers’ conditions and the impact of their work, but they do not suit Seacole, whose work and contributions were very different.

Holme Junior and Infant School, Holmfirth, West Yorkshire. The website reports that, in Class 1, Florence Nightingale and Mary Seacole are recreated. Pictures of the children are shown, bandaging other children.

Holy Trinity Church of England Primary School, Upper Tulse Hill, London. “Facts about Mary Seacole” include such misinformation as that she “gave soldiers clothes and boots to wear,” not a claim she ever made, although she did describe the items for sale to officers at her store. Both her mother and now her grandmother are said to have taught her “about medicine,” while Seacole described her mother as “an admirable doctress,” and did not mention her grandmother at all. Seacole herself is said to have been “a nurse in the Crimean War,” when she ran a business there.

Kilmorie Primary School, Kilmorie Rd, London SE. The website for Year 2 flags the BBC‘s highly unfactual “Horrible Histories.” The children are asked to consider (from that episode): “Do you agree that Mary should have been forgotten about and Florence gets all the praise?” without any information as to their respective work.

Kirk Sandall Infant School, Doncaster. A parents’ newsletter for autumn of Year 2 explains that the children “moved on to finding out about Mary Seacole who went out to nurse the soldiers in the Crimean War. She was a very brave lady.” The “brave” designation is of relatively recent origin-people who knew Seacole at the war described her as warm, kind and generous, well short of saving lives or risking her life.

Manor Oak Primary School, Orpington, Kent. In Year 2, both Seacole and Nightingale are taught, using the BBC‘s “Famous People” as a source, one which trivializes Nightingale while it overstates what Seacole did.

Maytree Nursery and Infant School, Southampton. The website reports a visit to the Southampton NHS Treatment Centre “to learn about nurse and heroine Mary Seacole,” and about the hospital.

Mount Pleasant Primary School, Brierley Hill, West Midlands. Year 2 Reading Focus notes “The Tin Soldier – Mary Seacole, Florence Nightingale.” Pupils are to find the links “between health and medicine over time. Find out and explore the impact that people in history and now have on modern day health, e.g., Louis Pasteur, Florence Nightingale, Mary Seacole.” The influence of Pasteur and Nightingale on modern day health can certainly be explored, but what Seacole’s might have been is not stated, nor is any evident from her writing and work.

Ollaberry School, Shetland islands. On its website, for Primaries 1-3, is a section “People Who Inspire Us,” where brief details are given of Seacole’s life, some of which are correct. Exaggerations include: “What did Mary Seacole do? Mary Seacole went to the Crimean War to help British soldiers. She nursed sick and wounded soldiers. When battles were raging, she gave everyone food, blankets, clean clothes and kindness. The soldiers called her ‘Mother Seacole.'” However, as her own memoir explained, she went to the war to start a business for officers, and never nursed “sick and wounded soldiers,” although she did give first aid on several occasions, however never when battles were “raging.” It was Nightingale who organized food, clothing and blankets for soldiers, not Seacole. Both gave kindness.

Paulerspury Church of England Primary School, near Towcester, Northants. The website notes its “Seacole Class,” no details given.

Petts Hill Primary School, Middlesex. The website describes a projected visit by Year 1 pupils to Gunnersbury Park Museum for a workshop about Mary Seacole to support work for Black History Month. What the workshop conveyed is not stated, but the website of the museum has many of the standard errors on Seacole. It calls an “eminent lady doctor” with secret “medicine,” who tended to “the wounded on the battlefield.”

Pilgrims’ Way Primary School and Children’s Centre, Southwark. Year One: “Mary Seacole-Pioneering Nurse and Heroine of the Crimean War. No details are given; the picture of Seacole shown does not include medals.

Prendergast Vale College, London, near Lewisham. Year 1 pupils: “In history we learnt about Mary Seacole and Florence Nightingale to think about people who help us ‘Stay Alive’ and this tied nicely into Black History Month where we investigated our own histories by interviewing our family members about their backgrounds.” Nightingale had much to offer about “Staying Alive,” but it is not clear how this would fit into the segment as described. Seacole did not, in fact, work on health issues, sanitation, nutrition, etc.

Sandfield Close Primary School, Leicester. The website reports on a project for a Rolls Royce Science Prize “to link our science to influential scientists,” naming both Florence Nightingale and Mary Seacole. The children are said to have “previously studied” them in Year 2, but not their “being important to science,” which Nightingale was. No information is provided as to any contribution Seacole might have made to science, and none appears in the literature.

Southwold Primary School, Hackney. Pupils at this school made a youtube: “The A-Z of Mary Seacole,” showing a portrait of her wearing medals.

A Appeal to raise money for Mary Seacole statue
B Balaclava opened a British Hotel in Balaclava
C Crimean War
D doctress
E England
F FN Mary Seacole offered to help her
G greatest, one of the greatest black Britons
H Hollander ship Mary Seacole traveled on
I injured soldiers, Mary helped
J Jamaica where Mary Seacole born…
L lost stories she wrote after the war?
M medals won from Turkey, France and Britain
N Nurse…
P Panama where went
Q for Queen Victoria, queen of Britain
R racism, which she overcame
S Scottish soldier Mary’s dad
T Turkey fighting in Crimean War
U unknown when people forgot about her
V Victoria
W war
X xpress they published her autobiography
Y yellow fever that lots of soldiers had
z zest for learning which Mary had

Seacole Primary School, Bosworth Rd., London. The website’s description of Mary Seacole is correct in her origins, her independence and travels. However, it makes the usual mistake of making her boarding house in Jamaica one for “invalid soldiers” when it was for officers, not injured, and in the Crimea, as a “centre in Balaclava to nurse sick soldiers,” with forays onto the battlefield “often under fire.” She was “the pioneering nurse and inspirational heroine of the Crimean War,” whose reputation “rivalled Florence Nightingale’s.”

St Bernadette’s Catholic Primary School. Cove, Farnborough, Hants. In Term 4, under Famous People, the pupils “Compare and contrast two: Florence Nightingale/Mary Seacole.” This could be a useful exercise, if appropriate materials were available to teachers. Since both the print and internet materials available are so erroneous this seems unlikely.

St John’s Church of England Primary School, Buckhurst Hill, Essex KS1 pupils in History “explore the historical background and way of life of people in the past,” specifying, as “famous men and women,” Guy Hawkes, Elizabeth I, Samuel Pepys, Mary Seacole).

St John’s Church of England Primary School. Winsford, Cheshire. The website states that “The original building dates back to Mary Seacole,” 150 years earlier. No details are provided as to what is taught on Seacole.

St Joseph’s Catholic Primary School, Hanwell, London. The website reports, with many pictures, a “Mary Seacole Gunnersbury Park” trip (see note on Petts Hill above).

St Joseph’s Catholic Primary School, Reddish. Stockport, Cheshire. The website reports that the children “have also enjoyed researching the famous, historical figures of Mary Seaocle and Florence Nightingale.” They “used a timeline to show events within their lives and found lots of information out using the internet.” A photograph of a bulletin board shows items on both. What internet sources the children used are not noted.

St Margaret’s Church of England Primary School, Nuneaton, Warwickshire. The website’s Famous people list has Samuel Pepys, Florence Nightingale and Mary Seacole. No details are provided as to the reasons for their fame.

St Margaret Clitherow’s RC Primary School, Stevenage, Herts. Its “Multicultural Statement states: “In History we teach the children about Mary Seacole and about Florence Nightingale.” No details are given as to the content of the teaching.

St Margaret’s Infant School, Medway, Kent. Pupils in the Woodpecker class “also learned about two very important women in history: Florence Nightingale and Mary Seacole, who saved so many lives of soldiers in the Crimean War.” The two are described in similar terms, even that they were both “told that they shouldn’t become nurses by family members and other doctors.” Nightingale was told precisely that, Seacole never, but followed her mother in learning the traditional skills of a “doctress” and running a boarding house. They both “made a huge difference,” although the website did not say what Seacole actually did to make a difference.

St Martin’s Church of England Infant School, Epsom, Surrey. “We are continuing to learn about the life of Florence Nightingale and we will be moving on to learn about the life of another famous nurse-Mary Seacole,” who was famous indeed, but as a businesswoman and adventurer, not a nurse.

St Mary’s Church of England Primary School, Melton Mowbray, Leic. Its website reports that the children were “finding out more about the Crimea, and Mary Seacole “even came to visit us!” There is no mention of Nightingale and what Seacole said on her visit is not reported.

St Mary’s Church of England Primary School, Kilburn, Camden. “All Year 2 parents and carers are invited to attend the Class Assembly” held to celebrate “the lives of Mary Seacole and Florence Nightingale.” No details are given, but it seems that the two lives are treated as if they were similar, when they overlapped so little.

St Mary’s Church of England Primary School, Kettering, Northants. A class topic on Seacole,” was said to have been “very much based around historical learning using art, drama and problem solving to really extend the children’s understanding.” Given the lack of adequate materials, however, it is difficult to see how the children’s “understanding” could be extended.

St Mary’s Catholic Primary School, Falmouth, Cornwall. The website states that Class 2, in “learning all about health,” will look at “Florence Nightingale and Mary Seacole,” no details given. Nightingale worked assiduously for decades on improving public health in home, school and hospital. Where an adventurous businesswoman might fit in on this subject is not apparent.

St Mary’s Catholic Primary School, Gillingham, Medway, Kent. An Ofsted report (Para 136, p41) states that: “Year 2 pupils show understanding and factual knowledge of the lives of Florence Nightingale and Mary Seacole.” One would like to know what sources teachers found to provide “factual knowledge,” given the highly unreliable print and internet sources known of.

St Mary’s Catholic Primary School, Whitstable, Kent. An Ofsted report (para 115, p38) states that in History, “Year 2 pupils learn about the Great fire of London….They compare the lives of famous people from the past with current day celebrities such as Neil Armstrong and Buddy Holly. They know about the work of Mary Seaocle and Florence Nightingale during the Crimean War and know that Mary Seacole did not receive, at the time, the recognition she deserved because she was black. This work makes a sound contribution to their moral and cultural development.” There seems to be no recognition that Seacole’s contribution was not at all equivalent to that of Nightingale.

St Oswald’s Church of England Primary School, Netherton, West Midlands. For Year 2 History, the “famous people from history” to be studied are: Van Gogh, Florence Nightingale, Mary Seacole and Samuel Greg. No details are given on the reasons for their fame.

St Peter’s Church of England Primary School, Chorley, Lancs. The website reports the study of “the lives of significant individuals in the past who have contributed to national and international achievements.” Included are Elizabeth I, Victoria, Christopher Columbus, Neil Armstrong…Rosa Parks and Emily Davison, Mary Seacole and/or Florence Nightingale and Edith Cavell.” Cavell was a nurse, but her fame comes from her bravery and patriotism in World War I, when she was executed by the Germans for helping British and Belgian soldiers escape. Nightingale of course was the founder of nursing and a major social and public health care reformer, while Seacole was a businesswoman. It seems that Seacole and Nightingale each do for the other, when their lives and work were so different.

St Stephen’s Church of England Primary School. Deptford, London. In Year 2 autumn term, “We look at the life of Mary Seacole and Florence Nightingale and how they made a difference to other people’s lives.” However, the two made very different contributions to other people’s lives, one as the founder of the nursing profession, hospital and health care reformer, the other as a businesswoman and volunteer.

Uplands Infant School, Melbourne Rd., Leicester. Year 2 topics include “Famous people–Mary Seacole or Florence Nightingale,” and Great Fire of London. Either Seacole or Nightingale, it seems, are to be chosen, as if each could represent the other.

Westfield Infant School, Chesterfield, Derbyshire. An Ofsted report states that: “Pupils in Year 2 have good knowledge about Mary Seacole. They know and admire the difficulties of race and gender she overcame to become a nurse in the Crimean War.” What they know was not specified, and of course Seacole was a businesswoman at the war, not a nurse.

Westfield Community School, Montrose Av, Wigan, Greater Manchester. Pupils in Year 2 Literacy learned about both Nightingale and Seacole. A blog then describes Seacole as “another famous nurse from the past.” They learned “some very interesting facts about her life,” unspecified. The two were then put together: “Today (Friday) in big writing we wrote a letter to Mary and Florence thanking them both for the wonderful things they did in the past and we think they are BOTH very important people that we should remember.”

Whitecote Primary School. A short bio of Seacole is given, with a picture of the Victoria Cross, which was given For Valour, but not to her, or any woman. The picture of her shows her wearing 3 other medals, none of them awarded to her. This website has much more information, and misinformation, than others.

“When Mary Seacole heard about the cholera epidemic she traveled to London to offer her services to the British Army. There was considerable prejudice against women’s involvement in medicine and her offer was rejected. When the Times publicised the fact that a large number of British soldiers were dying of cholera there was a public outcry, and the government was forced to change its mind. Florence Nightingale, who had little practical experience of cholera, was chosen to take a team of thirty-nine nurses to treat the sick soldiers.” However, Seacole did not go to London when the cholera epidemic became known, but only later, and that for the purposes of looking after her gold stocks. Nightingale, although her hospital experience was not lengthy, was nonetheless the best qualified person at the time to lead the nursing team. Seacole had had no hospital experience.

“Although Mary Seacole was an expert at dealing with cholera, her application to join Florence Nightingale’s team was rejected.” To the contrary, neither Seacole nor doctors had an effective way of dealing with cholera, and both used toxic substances in attempts. The errors continue with the statement that Seacole visited Nightingale “at her hospital at Scutari but once again Mary’s offer of help was refused,” although her own account specifies that she asked for a bed for the night and was given one-she was no longer looking for a position.

The account errs also in describing her business as selling “food and drink to the British soldiers,” when her customers were officers.

Nightingale and her nurses were some distance from the battlefield, more than “several miles from the front” referred to. But the account exaggerates in having Seacole treating her patients “on the battlefield,” and even on “both sides,” for which she gave a few examples, hardly a general practice.

The website is again wrong that Seacole “hoped to work as a nurse in India but was unable to raise the necessary funds.” The British Army paid the travel costs for nurses it sent anywhere. In the case of the 1857 Mutiny, it sent no nurses.

Whitehorse Manor Infant School, Thornton Heath, Croydon, Surrey. An Ofsted inspection report notes Seacole visiting Year 2: “As part of our history work on Mary Seacole and Florence Nightingale, the children took part in an exciting drama workshop. Mary Seacole herself came to visit us and told us all abut her experiences. She helped us to think about what it was like to work on the battlefield during the Crimean War. We learnt a lot from her and told her we thought she was a very brave nurse!!” There is no explanation that Seacole’s trips to the battlefield occurred, post-battle, on precisely 3 days (she missed the major battles). Nightingale’s work seems not to have been noticed.

Wilsden Primary School, Wilsden, Bradford, West Yorkshire. The website described a celebration for Black History Month of the “outstanding achievements” of such people as Nelson Mandela and Mary Seacole, whose “reputation after the Crimean War (1853-1856) rivalled Florence Nightingale’s.” She is described as a “born healer and a woman of driving energy,” and depicted with medals. Again, the comparison with Mandela raises problems.

Worthinghead Primary School, Bradford. “Mary was a nurse who also worked hard to look after soldiers during the Crimean War,” the usual exaggeration, since her business was for officers, and her first aid to soldiers, much appreciated, was on only a few occasions. There is regret that Seacole was “not as famous as Florence Nightingale,” with a further error that “she worked really hard to look after injured soldiers and was really brave, often going onto battlefields to look after the injured.” Links are provided to websites with substantial misinformation: BBC Famous People and BBC Historical Figures.

Wroughton Infant School. A Mary Seacole Assembly covered the topic of Great Britons, with “Mary Seacole, a contemporary of Florence Nightingale…a Jamaican nurse who showed incredible bravery during the Crimean War and did so whilst overcoming racism. Seacole’s life was performed in an assembly, with girls in nurses’ uniforms and boys in soldiers’.” Again, Seacole’s kindness and spunkiness have been exaggerated, her occupation as a businesswoman ignored.

While these examples hardly cover all schools, the pattern of errors and omissions is remarkable. Moreover, these occur in secular schools, Church of England and Roman Catholic.

We appreciate the worthy goals of promoting racial equality and diversity in role models, but cannot condone the use of misinformation to do this. In the case of nursing, there are other black and minority nurses who could be promoted, but are now ignored (six examples are given in Mary Seacole: The Making of the Myth, chapter 7). Mrs Seacole was a decent, kind and generous person. She lived a remarkable, independent and adventurous life. Her memoir is highly readable. However, she did not do the work Florence Nightingale did and should not be credited with it. She herself had no grudge against Nightingale, and each spoke well of the other-a fact that no one would glean from any of these books or websites.

Seacole herself was far from the goody-goody presented. In her memoir, she candidly admitted to “lamentable blunders” in her remedies, the taking of loot from the bodies of dead Russian soldiers and acceptance of loot stolen from Russian churches. She often spoke roughly of her black employees. She was proud of her business successes and proved herself to be resourceful and resilient, Far from the victim she is portrayed to be.

– Lynn McDonald, PhD, LLD (hon) University professor emerita Dept. of Sociology and Anthropology University of Guelph Guelph ON N1G 2W1 Canada

To the Publications Director, OCR Publications

To the Publications Director, OCR Publications

OCR Publications
July 9, 2014

Dear OCR Publications Director

We are writing with concern about the mark scheme for Mary Seacole in Medicine through Time. We also have concerns about the mark scheme for Florence Nightingale, but they are minor in comparison. For example, her important work analyzing mortality data post-Crimea, her health promotion work and “environmental” theory of nursing and health care are omitted. The material refers to deaths from wounds, apparently oblivious to the fact that disease killed far more people. The material on Seacole, however, is simply factually wrong, when relevant sources are consulted, notably her own memoir, Wonderful Adventures of Mrs Seacole in Many Lands (Oxford University Press 1988 for page references). The information on her life is thoroughly documented with primary sources in “The Wonderful Adventures of Mrs Seacole, in Lynn McDonald, Mary Seacole: The Making of the Myth, 2014, chapter 3. A (largely) accurate biography is Jane Robinson, Mary Seacole: The Charismatic Black Nurse Who Became a Heroine of the Crimea.

Mark Scheme A951/11-14 January 2011 indicates that marks are given for false statements in 4(1) “Briefly describe the career of Mary Seacole.” Of the eight points given as illustrations of good answers, five are thoroughly incorrect, and two are wrong in minor ways:

  1. worked as nurse/doctor in Jamaica,
  2. worked as a midwife,
  3. dealt with cholera in Panama,
  4. went to Britain and volunteered to go to Crimea,
  5. went at own expense, set up the ‘British Hospital,’
  6. nursed soldiers,
  7. returned to Britain bankrupt,
  8. newspaper held an appeal for her, benefit concert held for her.

An example, given 3 marks, states: “Mary Seacole did a lot to help the soldiers in the Crimea. She set up the British Hospital and kept soldiers clean and fed. She personally looked after the soldiers and often went into battle to help them.”

On 1, the answer fails to mention her actual occupation, proprietress of a boarding house in Jamaica, later a store/restaurant in Panama and one in Crimea, with work, on the side, as a “doctress” or herbalist. 2, she never worked as a midwife. She prescribed and administered drugs on her own, what would now be called practising medicine without a licence.

On 3, Seacole “dealt” with cholera, but not necessarily well. She acknowledged “lamentable blunders” (WA 31) and that some of her remedies later caused her to “shudder.” She used lead acetate and mercury chloride, toxic substances. Her “remedy” for cholera featured emetics, purgatives and sweating, all of which dehydrate the patient, while the known treatment (now, not then) is oral rehydration therapy. Seacole’s “remedies” were no worse than what many doctors used at the time, but she thought they were good, while some doctors, at least, were more sceptical.

On 4, the purpose of her trip to London, according to her own memoir, was to pursue her unsuccessful Panamanian gold stocks (WA 71). She only volunteered to go the Crimea in late November 1854, after the first three, major, battles had taken place, and well after Nightingale had left (WA 78-80). She never submitted the required application to become a nurse, but dropped in informally to various offices, never the one stipulated in the announcement inviting late applications for nurses, that is, after Nightingale’s departure.

On 5, she never set up any hospital, or claimed to have. In her memoir she specified her intention to establish the “British Hotel,” to be a “mess table and comfortable quarters for sick and convalescent officers” (WA 81) but in fact set up a hut which served as a restaurant/bar/store/takeaway/catering service for officers. There were no overnight stays at it, and it closed each night at 8 p.m. and on Sundays.

On 6, her customers were officers, not soldiers, and she sold them goods and services. On three occasions she gave first aid on the battlefield, post-battle, to officers or soldiers as needed (WA 155, 164, 169). She also sold remedies over the counter to (walk-in) soldiers, and in some cases gave them away. This is far from what is normally understood by “nursing.” Seacole never nursed in a hospital anywhere: Jamaica, Panama, Crimea or Britain.

On 7 she and her business partner sought bankruptcy protection on their return to Britain; they had overstocked the restaurant/bar/store in the long period after the fighting was over when business was good: “My restaurant was always full” (WA 178). This was a bad business decision, not quite what is often implied.

On 8, the appeal and benefit concerts were held by officer friends, former customers. Newspapers assisted with positive stories about her but did not organize them.

We ask that Ofsted inspectors ensure that the teaching given on Seacole be fair and accurate for a school to be rated positively for it. Given the lack of adequate resources, we believe that teaching on Seacole should be suspended. The promotion of racial equality and cultural diversity are worthy goals, but the end does not justify the means. Mrs Seacole was a fine and decent person whose life deserves to be celebrated. She does not deserve false stories to puff her up. In the case of nursing, there are a number of good black and other minority nurses who have been neglected, thanks to the Seacole campaign. Pupils deserve honest and accurate information at all ages, with details appropriate to their age.

To all Westminster MPs

To all Westminster MPs

July 17, 2013

Dear MP,

We are writing with concern about the decision of the Department for Education to remove Florence Nightingale from the National Curriculum, but to continue recognition of Mary Seacole. We are concerned as well with the Department of Health’s announcement that Mary Seacole should be honoured as one of four new “Pioneers of Health Care,” excluding Nightingale, who was very much a pioneer of health care, a visionary advocating quality care for all, as well as being the major founder of the modern profession of nursing.We do not oppose honouring Seacole, but rather the exaggerated claims made for her, often with derogatory statements about Nightingale. Seacole is now given credit for work that Nightingale did.

The Early Day Motion of January 2013 urging the continued inclusion of Seacole in the National Curriculum is wrong from beginning to end. She was a decent, generous person, a businesswoman serving officers. Information on what she actually did, with rebuttals of misinformation, is available on www.maryseacole.info. That website also provides a Timeline, which gives the activities of both Nightingale and Seacole. Seacole’s own memoir, Wonderful Adventures of Mrs Seacole in Many Lands (and a good read) contradicts many of the points made in your motion.

“That this House is aware of history which records the many heroic and compassionate acts carried out unselfishly by renowned war nursing heroine Mary Seacole for innumerable wounded soldiers injured on the Crimean War’s bloody battlefields.”

  • Seacole was unselfish and on three occasions gave first aid on the battlefield, after selling food and drink to spectators and officers. Since she missed the first three, major, battles, the “innumerable wounded” point is excessive.
  • Seacole was recognized at the time for her warmth and generosity, not as a war heroine or health care advocate.

Recognition “of her contribution shortly to be revealed by the unveiling of a large bronze statue in her memory to be erected in the grounds of St Thomas’ Hospital facing the Houses of Parliament.”

  • Unfortunately the statue is slated to name her “Pioneer Nurse,” which she was not, nor did she ever claim to be a nurse at all. She called herself a “doctress,” used traditional herbal remedies, but also added toxic substances, notably lead and mercury.
  • St Thomas’ Hospital was the home for more than a century of Nightingale’s school of nursing, the first secular training school for nurses in the world, and which for decades influenced nursing throughout the world. Seacole in fact held no grudge against Nightingale. According to her memoir they met once, for about 5 minutes, a cordial meeting when Seacole asked for a bed for the night, which Nightingale found for her. (Seacole was en route to the Crimea to start her business.)

Seacole helped “establish a centre to administer the sick and tended to the wounded on the battlefield throughout much of the time under bombardment.”

  • The “centre” was a hut, which served as a restaurant/bar/store/takeaway/catering service for officers. The “bombardment” is fiction; everyone near the front was at risk of an odd stray shell, and joked about being “under fire.”

Seacole was “little rewarded for all of her distinguished service in the field…and had to declare bankruptcy.”

  • True, Seacole and her business partner had to declare bankruptcy, the result of a bad business decision. After the fall of Sebastopol, they expanded their stock and did a roaring trade for many months, “my restaurant was always full,” said Seacole. When the peace treaty was signed and the officers left, the stock could not be sold. Seacole herself took a hammer to cases of red wine, rather than let the Russians get them for free.
  • Seacole was supported after the bankruptcy by money raised for her, mainly by officers. She was able to retire in ease.

Nightingale’s achievements show her national and international significance. Her superb work in statistics and research methodology make her an especially useful model also for girls. In 1864 she called for quality health care for the poor as well as the better off, a principle later enshrined in the 1948 National Health Service. Aneurin Bevan is (rightly) honoured as one of the four “Pioneers of Health Care.” Nightingale deserves to be there, too. As scandals in hospital care emerge, the need for her principles of compassion in patient care, and insistence on high standards of supervision and monitoring to check results all seem even better and better as ideas. What a time to exclude her!

This is not an either-or argument. People should be honoured for their merits. Nightingale’s are clear. Seacole should be honoured for hers, not Nightingale’s, nor the fictional claims made for her by her over-enthusiastic supporters.

We have written the Secretaries of State for Education and Health, as well as other supporters of the Seacole campaign, but as yet have received no reply as to what Seacole’s nursing and health care achievements actually were. Please tell us!

Yours sincerely

[14 members of the Nightingale Society]

To the National Union of Teachers

We are writing with concern about the NUT’s support for the Mary Seacole Statue Campaign, and teaching on her in the National Curriculum. We do not oppose honouring Seacole in either way, but the associated misinformation campaign. A status of Seacole is a worthy honour, and the sculptor chosen a fine one. However it should not be labeled “Pioneer Nurse,” portray her with medals, which she did not win, nor ever claim to have, and should not be placed at St Thomas’ Hospital, for more than a century the site of Nightingale’s School, the pioneering nursing school that improved nursing throughout the world.

Has the NUT supported the ongoing inclusion of Nightingale in the National Curriculum? We ask you to, if you have not. She not only was the major founder of the modern profession of nursing, but she was a great public health reformer, which Seacole never was, and never claimed to be. In 1864 Nightingale called for quality care for all, regardless of ability to pay, and argued for the replacement of the harsh Poor Law, which sent people to workhouses, in favour of humane agencies that would provide care for the aged, the sick and infirm. No child should ever be in a workhouse, she said–surely you would agree.

Yet Seacole is included as a nurse, pioneer and health care advocate, with medals no less. She was a decent and generous person, a businesswoman who ran a restaurant/bar/store/takeaway service for officers–a legitimate business–but not a hospital or clinic for soldiers, as she is now said to have done, and which she never claimed. For an exposé of common errors in portraying her see www.maryseacole.info/

Seacole was honoured post-war for her kindness, and officers raised a fund to support her in her old age. The recent campaign, however, changes all that to her being honoured for heroism, and she is given credit for all the work Nightingale did to bring in better standards of cleanliness and nutrition to the war hospitals and improve the lives of ordinary soldiers.

Has the NUT supported the ongoing inclusion of Nightingale in the National Curriculum? We ask you to do so. This is not either/or with Seacole. The two were different people and each should be honoured for her merits. For Nightingale, inclusion also means highlighting a woman adept at statistics and public policy, a needed model (there aren’t many) for girls at school.

To Ed Miliband, Leader of the Opposition

To Ed Miliband, Leader of the Opposition

Rt Hon Ed Miliband, MP
Leader of the Opposition
milibande@parliament.uk

June 7, 2013

Dear Mr Miliband

We send you a copy of a letter we sent to the Secretary of State for Health on the nomination of Mary Seacole as one of four “health care pioneers” to be honoured in new leadership awards, with concern that Florence Nightingale, who clearly was a health care pioneer, was omitted.

You, as Labour leader, should be particularly mystified, for it was Nightingale who, in 1864, articulated the vision of quality care for all, including those unable to pay for it, and worked assiduously to raise the standard of care in the worst hospitals, the dreaded workhouse infirmaries, where the poorest were forced to go. She fits in well with Aneurin Bevan, who realized this vision with the launching of the National Health Service in 1948. Mary Seacole, a perfectly decent and generous businesswoman, did nothing on health care! (Do tell us if we are wrong on this.)

The according of Nightingale’s work to Seacole is a mistake made by both Labour and Conservative MPs, and, we suspect, by officials in the Department of Health. We append a Timeline comparing the work of the two women, wondering how anyone could mistake who was the health care pioneer.

We would appreciate your circulating this material to MPs in your caucus.

Yours sincerely

Copy: letter to Rt Hon Jeremy Hunt, PC, MP, Secretary of State for Health, May 20, 2013

To Nick Clegg, Deputy Prime Minister and leader of the Liberal Democratic Party

To Nick Clegg, Deputy Prime Minister and leader of the Liberal Democratic Party

Rt Hon Nick Clegg, MP
Deputy Prime Minister
70 Whitehall
London SW1A 2AS

June 7, 2013

Dear Mr Clegg

We send you a copy of a letter we sent to the Secretary of State for Health on the nomination of Mary Seacole as one of four “health care pioneers,” to be honoured in new leadership awards, with concern that Florence Nightingale, who clearly was a health care pioneer, was omitted.

You as leader of the Liberal Democratic Party should be concerned that a lifelong Liberal, which Nightingale was, should have been so badly forgotten.

We do not at all oppose honouring Seacole, for her own work (there are already two awards named after her), but for mistaking Nightingale’s work and vision for hers. We append a Timeline which compares the contributions of the two.

We would appreciate your circulating this material to your Parliamentary colleagues.

Yours sincerely

BBC Complaints

BBC Complaints
PO Box 1922
Darlington
DL3 0UR

To whom it may concern:

We are making a number of complaints about your coverage of Mary Seacole on several of your websites. It is too late to complain about your television programmes on Florence Nightingale and Seacole, but the websites are still available and should, therefore, be corrected. This first set of complaints concerns one of your programmes on Horrible Histories, ‘Florence Nightingale and Mary Seacole’.

  1. Not only was the public relations consultant fictional, as your description stated, the whole story was false, insulting to Nightingale and giving achievements and attributes to Seacole which she never had, nor ever claimed in her memoir, Wonderful Adventures of Mrs Seacole in Many Lands, 1857. Seacole could not have done much work for ‘wounded’ soldiers as she missed the first three battles of the Crimean War: the Alma, Balaclava and Inkermann.
  2. Seacole is portrayed as an old-fashioned nurse; she is young and black, although she was never a nurse, in Jamaica or in the Crimean War, and never wore a nurse’s uniform. Her occupation in Jamaica was a boarding house proprietor, and in the Crimean War she ran a restaurant/bar/store/takeaway for officers. She is portrayed as black, when she was, in fact, three quarters white. Moreover, she was proud of her Scottish heritage, but not of her Creole background (she never said she was an African: See her book, Wonderful Adventures, pp.1-2). Instead, she referred to herself as ‘yellow’, to indicate her fair complexion. Like many other people in the nineteenth century, she made rude remarks about ‘niggers’. Many examples can be found on a website: www.maryseacole.info/
  3. Contrary to your statement that Seacole and Nightingale ‘argued about the nursing work each of them did for wounded soldiers’, the two of them only met once, for about five minutes, as described by Seacole in her memoir (Wonderful Adventures, p. 91). On this occasion Seacole asked Nightingale for a bed for the night, which Nightingale found for her. Seacole was en route to the Crimea to open her store/business. They did not discuss nursing at all, according to Seacole’s memoir.
  4. Contrary to your reference to Seacole being “refused entry” into Nightingale’s nursing corps, Nightingale and her nurses had already left London for the East by the time Seacole decided that she wanted to join them. Seacole’s main reason for being in London was to look after her gold mining stocks, as she explained in her memoir (p. 71).
  5. Seacole did not sell her home to go to the Crimea, as your statement suggests, but used the profits from her last business in Panama to fund this trip and start the business in the Crimea.
  6. Seacole never established a hospital, nor ever claimed to. Her business, described in detail in her memoir, provided food, alcohol, takeaway meals and catering services for officers’ parties and sporting events. She described giving first aid on the battlefield, post-battle, on three occasions.
  7. Your statement that ‘Both nurses did pioneering work’ is grossly inaccurate, as Seacole was not a nurse, and did no pioneering work in nursing, nor ever claimed to. She called herself, as her mother had before her, a ‘doctress’, meaning she was a herbalist. Nightingale’s pioneering work was much more extensive than you describe. Seacole’s so-called ‘pioneering work’ in ‘cholera and tropical diseases’ is a mis-statement, in that she claimed few successes, admitted blunders, and is known to have used lethal substances, namely, lead acetate and mercury chloride in her ‘cures’. She was no worse than most doctors of the time, but it would be wildly inaccurate to credit her with ‘pioneering’ work.
  8. In the BBC film clip Seacole claims that Nightingale turned her down four times; she did not do so even once, as explained above. Seacole did not sell her home in Jamaica to fund her trip, but used profits from her Panama business, as she explained in Wonderful Adventures (p. 74). Nightingale never said, and never believed, that nursing was only for ‘British girls’. This is to accuse Nightingale of racism, and is very offensive. The clip shows Nightingale literally pushing Seacole aside; this is a totally fictional and another offensive misrepresentation. In fact, Nightingale’s grandfather, William Smith who was an MP for Norwich, was a leading member of the movement to abolish slavery and the whole family felt strongly about racial injustices.
  9. The clip that has Seacole a ‘penniless black’ is wrong because she was not black; and, moreover, her subsequent bankruptcy was the result of poor business decisions, namely, overstocking of goods expecting the war to continue for months longer than it did.
  10. Calling both women by their first names does them both an injustice. They were adults, not children at the time: Nightingale was 34 and Seacole 50 years old. Do you call adult men in comparable places by their first names?

This sorry website should be closed down, and an apology issued for its flagrant misrepresentations of both people, New material should be provided that is factually accurate on both. It behoves your researchers to read Mary Seacole’s book, Wonderful Adventures of Mrs. Seacole in Many Lands, which is now available online: www.digital.library.upenn.edu/
women/seacole/adventures/adventures.html
.

For further examples of misrepresentation see the website www.maryseacole.info.

The next set of complaints comes from BBC History. Historic Figures: Mary Seacole (1805-1881):

Your opening statement is a flagrant misrepresentation by calling Seacole a ‘pioneering nurse and heroine of the Crimean War’. She was not a nurse at all, and never claimed to be. She was not recognised as a heroine at the time, but this claim has only recently been made of her. Your picture shows her with three medals, which, however, she was never awarded.

  1. Contrary to your statement that Seacole learned her ‘nursing skills’ from her mother, she learned herbal remedies from her, whom she called an ‘admirable doctress’, in her memoir, Wonderful Adventures of Mrs Seacole in Many Lands (p. 2). Her mother did not keep a boarding house for ‘invalid soldiers’, as it was meant for army and naval officers, who were not necessarily sick.
  2. Seacole never claimed to have ‘complemented her knowledge of traditional medicine with European medical ideas’. On her travels to Britain, she sold Jamaican pickles and preserves; in the Bahamas she acquired shells and shell-work for sale in Jamaica (pp. 3-5), which demonstrated instances of business activity, with no reference to medical knowledge.
  3. It is not clear how and when Seacole was ‘refused’ by the War Office. According to her own memoir, she did not even decide she wanted to go until late November 1854, after Nightingale and her team had already left. She never submitted an application to the War Office (whose archival material may be seen at the National Archives at Kew).
  4. Seacole announced with a printed card her intention of opening the ‘British Hotel as a mess-table and comfortable quarters for sick and convalescent Officers’, but, in fact, did not open a hotel at all; instead, she opened a hut which served as a restaurant/bar/store/takeway.
  5. Your statement that her battlefield visits were ‘sometimes under fire’ is an exaggeration. She missed the first three battles entirely, but was present for three of them in 1855. On these occasions, described in her Wonderful Adventures, her main function was the sale of food and drink to officers and spectators. She also provided first aid on the battlefield. She referred to being ‘under fire’ in quotation marks, in the same way that many other people did who were in that vicinity.
  6. You provide no historical evidence for your statement that her reputation ‘rivalled’ that of Florence Nightingale. Mrs Seacole was well liked and became a celebrity on her return to London. However it was Nightingale who led the nursing and did the hard quantitative work after the war addressing the causes of the terrible death rates. Nightingale’s reputation was based on her solid accomplishments, which were well recognized at the time, by doctors, medical statisticians, architects and engineers. Her work and ideas remain influential today.

This website should be drastically revised. The picture should state that Seacole did not earn those medals; moreover, in her memoir she never claimed to have won them. She is first known to have worn them back in London in 1856.

Finally, an e-mail written by an 11 year old girl sent to one of us (Dr Lynn McDonald) exemplifies the way in which poorly conceived BBC programmes (i.e., your Horrible Histories on Florence Nightingale and Mary Seacole) can misinform the public of all ages (and affect their views into adulthood). This young girl wrote to ask: ‘Is it true Florence turned down Mary Seacole four times because she was black?’ To which the answer was, as you will have read above, ‘of course not’. Nightingale never turned down Seacole and helped her when she requested help.

– Yours sincerely,

Dr M. Eileen Magnello
Chairperson of the History Group of the Royal Statistical Society
Senior Research Fellow
Department of Science and Technology Studies
University College London
London WC1E 6BT

Dr Lynn McDonald
(university professor emerita)
Dept. of Sociology and Anthropology
University of Guelph
Guelph ON N1G 2W1
Canada

To Jeremy Hunt, Secretary of State for Health

To Jeremy Hunt, Secretary of State for Health

Rt Hon Jeremy Hunt, PC, MP
Secretary of State for Health
Richmond House, 79 Whitehall
London SW1A 2NS
May 16, 2013

Dear Mr Hunt

It is bad enough that the Royal College of Nursing and Unison are promoting the replacement of Florence Nightingale with Mary Seacole as the “real founder” of nursing, but the announcement of your department’s new programme, “Heroes of Healthcare” is yet worse: Mary Seacole for nursing, Elizabeth Garrett Anderson, women in medicine; Edward Jenner, medicine and Nye Bevan, the healthcare system. This is not to protest celebrating “heroes of healthcare,” far from it, and we note with approval the gender balance, two men and two women.

Possibly the inclusion of Mary Seacole was intended to give racial balance, as she is typically portrayed as a “black Briton,” although she was three quarters white, had a white husband, business partner and white customers, and was proud of her Scottish heritage but not her “Creole” (“blacks” in her writing refer to others, not herself). A better choice for race balance might be the U.K. trained Nigerian Mrs K.A. Pratt, who truly was a nurse, although her contributions were to nursing proper more than health care as a system.

Mrs Seacole was an honourable and generous businesswoman, as a restaurant/bar/caterer and boarding house proprietress, not a nurse. She called herself “doctress” for her use of traditional herbals. She also used lethal metals in her “remedies,” a point omitted by her promoters. She left a fine memoir and her life does deserve celebration. However as she made no contribution to healthcare in Britain or anywhere, it is grossly misleading to name her a “healthcare hero.” There are numerous errors of fact in your department’s announcement.

The missing person in your awards package is Florence Nightingale, who was the major founder of nursing and a visionary of public health care. She articulated the principle, in 1864, of quality health care for all, including the poorest (as opposed to mere charity wards). The National Health Service in 1948 is unthinkable without her decades of work of reforming the terrible workhouse infirmaries, making them into real hospitals, with training, when bedsharing, and no trained nurses, were the norm.

A timeline comparing the contributions of Nightingale and Seacole is appended for your information, and for your officials. Do please tell use what is missing for Seacole, what contributions your department was thinking of when preparing this announcement. Nightingale’s achievements are only summary in our timeline–she did decades of good work both to establish nursing and improve health care and hospitals generally.

Sincerely yours