The Conundrum that is the Diploma Brooch Author’s note: The author acknowledges that the following text is highly speculative. It attempts to follow the pathway of the MBÖ brooch over its 130 years of history, pursuing information that is beset with unanswered questions and lack of hard evidence. It is recognised further archival research may eventually reveal a more succinct and coherent assessment. Hopefully this article might just encourage such research! The College has been represented by four official badges throughout its history, the MBÖ pocket badge and the silver MBÖ brooch being the earliest1. Speculatively the metal brooch may well have preceded the pocket; it is clear that the cloth embroidered, monogrammed pocket was designed for student use – it being cited on the early clothing lists held in the Archive. It is not so evident that the silver brooch was intended for student use, or for college identification; it does not appear on College uniform lists. It is certainly not evident that it was specifically intended to be a Diploma brooch; more likely an historical move was responsible for such status. Sheila Cutler’s article ‘The Dartford Diploma Badge – a history’ (BÖU Magazine; 2010) probably ensured that the brooch was claimed as the Diploma Badge from 2010 onwards. Prior to this article the word diploma (usually lower case) and Certificate (upper case) appear to have been used – quite confusingly – as synonymous; the notion of there being an annual Diploma Day is not borne out by available records, whilst a Diploma Day in which a diploma brooch and a diploma were presented together also lacks evidence and serves to confuse! The recent move to call the ‘Diploma Badge’ (ibid) a brooch (see BÖU Magazine 2017) is possibly more apposite than can be first imagined. In 1907 it was called a brooch. By the 1920s it was called a badge, the Bergman Österberg Union appearing to have made the change. Undoubtedly, it is an exquisite piece of jewellery – a small unmarked Arts and Crafts monogrammed silver ornament with a central green stone replicated in a similar stone drop2. Sadly, its origin remains a conundrum. Was it initially: a piece of jewellery made for Madame; an emblem to represent her college; an item to signify Principalship; a staff only brooch; an insignia of the BÖU; a proof of qualification from a prestigious college or as a dual award to be presented with the College’s Diploma? 65 Although arguably speculative, these questions are chronologically ordered against the Archival evidence available to date. It is not difficult to venture that the brooch was a bespoke piece of jewellery made for Madame. It would have been made after the Österberg’s marriage (1886) and from 1888 onwards, but exactly when is unknown. It may be a somewhat romanticised notion, but it might not be too difficult to imagine Madame and her new husband walking or cycling from Hampstead into central London, enjoying some window shopping along Regent Street and then turning into Brook Street. Here they may have come across the silver smith, George Hart in his Arts and Crafts workshop (established 1888), later supplier none-the-less to the newly opened Liberty store close by (1902). They could have commissioned the brooch – one designed to weave them together in the Österberg name. It must be noted that the brooch only bears Madame’s initials – thus it was her brooch; just a personal ornament may have been its raison d’être . Hampstead, Regent Street and Dartford were her colleges; with the exception of the latter they did not bear Madame’s name despite her being exceptionally proud of hers and her girls’ achievements. Being of a practical, hands on nature, it is unlikely that she would designate her brooch as a representative insignia. The brooch is beautiful, it is hardly an item to be subjected to the demands of vigorous exercise whilst perilously pinned to a gym tunic, even though by 1907 this was the case. The drop itself could easily be torn from its mount. The cloth pocket, however, would have surely been agreed as a sensible choice, placing the founder’s initials clearly to the fore and identifying both her College and her students. Given this, Madame could hardly have selected the silver brooch for the demands cited. Working for the London School Board, Madame would have been familiar with the practice of identifying different schools with silver or metal badges to be worn on the shoulder or placed on a cap. This was not confined to the richer schools but also to many of the charitable foundations. She could easily have adopted such a method of identifying her college, her work, and her students. Her brooch, seemingly, at this time was not available for such public display. The tunic, onto which the brooch was later pinned was not available until 1893; by this time Madame had named two Colleges. Instead of using her name she opted to name her colleges after location. Although the Dartford Site was officially named the Bergman Österberg College of Physical Training (1896) it was more frequently called Kingsfield or the College on the Heath (even in 1916). Again, given this it is unlikely that the brooch was designed 66 as a badge for her college. Surprisingly there are no archival photographs of Madame wearing the brooch. There is only a single piece of evidence to show that Madame wore the brooch as cited by Jean Milligan (1906) in a transcript of a memoir (referenced in: BÖU Magazine 2016) when Madame was seen to remove her brooch and pin it onto a student’s tunic. The later pioneer women’s colleges students all chose metal badges which were specifically made to state student training and qualification at that specialist institute. None of these are as spectacular or as endangered as Madame’s brooch. The Archive holds a photograph of Mary Tait (1902); in this she is wearing the brooch in choker style fashion around the neck. This is, to date, the first photograph of the brooch. In the Middle Ages, badges were popular as jewellery; the grandest form of badge was worn as a pendant to a metal collar often in gold or silver gilt. Miss Tait frequently deputised as ‘Superintendent, deputy to the Principal’ in Madame’s absence (May:1969). Again speculation, but had the brooch now been moved from a personal piece to a more public wearer, in Mary Tait as ‘Principal’ in absentia; had the brooch come to symbolise the Principal? In the early years of College, staff and ‘Old Students’ would play in the College teams alongside those in training. Archive photos of students indicate unqualified students did not wear the metal badge; where the brooch is shown it is worn by a qualified or ‘Old Student’ – thus labelled, and usually a member of staff. A clear example is depicted in the Staff photograph, 1912 (in: op cit Claydon). This practice indicates that ‘Old Students’ were now entitled to wear the brooch. The date otherwise from which staff were permitted to wear the brooch is unknown. It is interesting to note the absence of the brooch in Archival photographs – they are mainly of students in training. This seems to endorse the unqualified status. This is only clarified at a much later date (1923). A key event occurring in 1902 also points to this issue highlighting the difference between the qualified/unqualified student: ‘the Bergman-Österberg Union of Trained Gymnastic Teachers was founded on an informal basis’… for … ‘Old Stu- dents’ (op cit May; 1969). By 1903 ‘Old Students’ had initiated their access to the brooch. The oldest badge held in the College Archive is inscribed E C Ranken with 1903 stamped on the reverse. Miss Ranken did not join the staff but was a qualified student. On this basis she was entitled to wear the brooch alongside members of staff. Prior to 1904 all staff would only have been Dartford trained. Once the BÖU was formally established, the brooch (now called badge) was embossed on the cover of the first official BÖU Magazine and remained thus until 1980. Clearly, by then, the qualified students had made the brooch their own. Whether this was the case 67 in 1902 is again unknown. The demand for a change of badge in 1923 (BÖU Maga- zine; 1924) highlights the status of the brooch to the BÖU. We understand that for some time past there has been considerable comment and discussion among Old Students on the fact that students at College who are still working for their diploma wear the same badge as Old Students who have gained the diploma. At the meeting of the Old Students in July 1923 it was finally decided to ask Miss Lett if the present Students could have a badge different from the M.B.O. one. It was agreed to make the change. This states that the BÖU cloth badge, at the least was now an official insignia, and it was to be jealously guarded. With Madame’s death in 1915 and with the change in name of the College the original motif seemed only relevant to those qualifying under Madame. The change made was from the MBÖ embroidered cloth badge to the DCOPT cloth one. The MBÖ ‘badge’ may well have been the prerogative of the ‘Old Students’ by 1923 but it may not have been so clearly thus in 1907. Jean Milligan (op cit BÖU Magazine; 2016) recalled: ‘on our last summer term …..when we all got our Certificates and our MBÖ brooch … at the end of the ceremony … Madame pinned it on the student’s tunic …’.