Go for it Hilary

**french frank** · 19-02-13, 21:49

Here's a Guardian view ...

**Resurrection Man** · 19-02-13, 22:01

So which one is you, GongGong?

**Simon** · 19-02-13, 22:02

A sensible view, from the Grauniad. Another, similar one expressed on the radio, earlier. If you actually look at what was said, the "attack" hardly merits the name and it seemed to be more a discussion of the role of some women in society and the way they are portrayed.

Not that anything like accuracy, fact and rationality will stop some of the esteemed anti-royal intellectuals on here from giving us the benefit of their shallow knee-jerks, but there we go...

**amateur51** · 19-02-13, 22:05

Originally posted by Simon View Post

Not that anything like accuracy, fact and rationality will stop some of the esteemed anti-royal intellectuals on here from giving us the benefit of their shallow knee-jerks, but there we go...

So you've not read the Mantel piece then, just the review?

**french frank** · 19-02-13, 22:07

Originally posted by Simon View Post

A sensible view, from the Grauniad.

I just thought I'd quote that

**Thropplenoggin** · 19-02-13, 22:08

Originally posted by amateur51 View Post

So you've not read the Mantel piece then, just the review?

Come on, Ams, it's written by a woman! What can it possibly have to say to someone as worldly-wise as our Simon.

**french frank** · 19-02-13, 22:20

It's almost 6,000 words - anyone like to venture a précis of what Mantel is saying?

**Simon** · 19-02-13, 22:25

Originally posted by french frank View Post

I just thought I'd quote that

Although I make fun of some of the more wildly naive and politically correct stuff in the Grauniad, it's obvious that they have some excellent writers and that there are some perceptive and rational articles that few could disagree with. Don't see it that often, I admit - but sometimes read the online stuff.

**Simon** · 19-02-13, 22:27

Originally posted by Thropplenoggin View Post

Come on, Ams, it's written by a woman! What can it possibly have to say to someone as worldly-wise as our Simon.

I appreciate the smiley, though I'm not sure of the point. What has the sex of the author got to do with anything connected with me?

**Simon** · 19-02-13, 22:35

Originally posted by french frank View Post

It's almost 6,000 words - anyone like to venture a précis of what Mantel is saying?

Well, I certainly wouldn't be bothering with that as I have better things to do, and I haven't read it in full, obviously. But there's enough out there to get a fair idea of what she was on about.

As I said, I don't think it's as personally unpleasant as it's made out to be by some in the media. Some valid points about the role, rather than the person.

Has it helped anybody? Probably not. Was it a useful contribution to society? Probably not. Was it a good bit of publicity-seeking from the author? Probably.

That's all there is to it, really. I expect everyone will soon move on.

**Thropplenoggin** · 19-02-13, 22:39

Originally posted by french frank View Post

It's almost 6,000 words - anyone like to venture a précis of what Mantel is saying?

Originally posted by Simon View Post

Well, I certainly wouldn't be bothering with that as I have better things to do, and I haven't read it in full, obviously. But there's enough out there to get a fair idea of what she was on about.

It's a brilliant read. Do yourselves a favour (and do justice to the author) and set aside time to read it. Regardless of whether you agree with it, it's very, very well-written. Better go to the source directly, surely, and make your own mind up than get your views from second-hand sources, especially if that source is the Daily Heil.

**french frank** · 19-02-13, 22:50

It seemed to me to me an article by a woman who has made her name from writing about royalty, looking at the public and media obsessions with 'royalty':

'It’s rather that I saw Kate becoming a jointed doll ...Once she gets over being sick, the press will find that she is radiant. They will find that this young woman’s life until now was nothing, her only point and purpose being to give birth.'

'But in her first official portrait by Paul Emsley, unveiled in January, her eyes are dead and she wears the strained smile of a woman who really wants to tell the painter to bugger off.

'When her pregnancy became public she had been visiting her old school, and had picked up a hockey stick and run a few paces for the camera. BBC News devoted a discussion to whether a pregnant woman could safely put on a turn of speed while wearing high heels. It is sad to think that intelligent people could devote themselves to this topic with earnest furrowings of the brow, but that’s what discourse about royals comes to: a compulsion to comment, a discourse empty of content,...

'But a new world began, I think, in 1980, with the discovery that Diana, the future Princess of Wales, had legs. You will remember how the young Diana taught for a few hours a week at a kindergarten called Young England, and when it was first known that she was Charles’s choice of bride, the press photographed her, infants touchingly gathered around; but they induced her to stand against the light, so in the resulting photograph the nation could see straight through her skirt. A sort of licentiousness took hold, a national lip-smacking. Those gangling limbs were artlessly exposed, without her permission. It was the first violation.

'Along with the reverence and awe accorded to royal persons goes the conviction that the body of the monarch is public property. We are ready at any moment to rip away the veil of respect, and treat royal persons in an inhuman way, making them not more than us but less than us, not really human at all.

'I’m not asking for censorship. I’m not asking for pious humbug and smarmy reverence. I’m asking us to back off and not be brutes.

**amateur51** · 19-02-13, 23:07

Originally posted by Thropplenoggin View Post

It's a brilliant read. Do yourselves a favour (and do justice to the author) and set aside time to read it. Regardless of whether you agree with it, it's very, very well-written. Better go to the source directly, surely, and make your own mind up than get your views from second-hand sources, especially if that source is the Daily Heil.

THE LRB link offers not only the text but also the sound of Mantel delivering it, if that helps

**french frank** · 19-02-13, 23:15

The Guardian again (Comment is free):

"This is also a good example of how the Mail fights back when it feels it is being attacked. For if Mantel was attacking anyone in her talk, then her aim was clearly at the Mail with its obsessive, prurient fascination with Kate. To see the Mail gasping at Mantel's suggestion that the duchess is "designed to breed" when it has been on "bump watch" since she walked down the aisle ..."

**MrGongGong** · 19-02-13, 23:21

The only "knee jerk" reactions seem to be from folk who think that any intelligent critique of society that includes the royal family is somehow "disloyal" . In the context of some of the things I learnt this evening about Mosolov on the BBC4 "Sound & Fury" there is much to be said ......

I'm a bit worried about Simon though
I think he might need a few days off with some Elgar ?