Hilary Mantel makes a good point

[juneau]

She shouldn't have said it, since it's bitchy and uncalled for (and I actually find HM rather odd, if I'm honest), but after a good couple of years in the media spotlight I struggle to think of one thing the Duchess of Cambridge thinks or believes in. She never gives an opinion, she barely speaks, she just looks pretty and smiles.

Lol,seeker i see you understand enough of my posts to know you no likey.funny that
Funnier still,you can opine wildly on British public,but not understand bit were I think you're bumptious

Stoic "KM had spent yesterday in private meetings with both residents and workers at Hope House, a rehab facility for women in recovery from addiction; and also spent some of same day at same place in more 'public' mode - IE. Press allowed in, pics taken.... Same pics in papers today that (alongside all the predictable stuff re bump etc), have served to raise awareness of Action On Addiction (the charity that, amongst other facilities) runs & finances Hope House"

Because thats what Royals do, to justify their existence. I very much doubt Kate Middleton would have bothered with these charities had she not married into the Royal Family. I very much doubt she would be doing this charity work were it not organised by her by employees paid by state taxation. She appears doing charitable work = more popularity for the monarchy = Princess with otherwise nothing to do with her time is rendered beyond criticism. Its a win-win situation.

I'm by no means an anti-Royallist, but I don't think doing charity work in such a context turns KM into some kind of saint.

It was your last post with the sad face in it that made no sense at all. I understood the one where you took me to task, but chose to ignore it. Reading this thread alone should give you a clue about the %of people who actually understand what's going on with the HL/KM debacle, and the % of people who don't. And the politicians are fully aware which is the larger %age, and so which side to come down on.

Ok Stoic. The reason, if it has been used, this phrase 'uninformed thickos' or thereabouts, has been used here is when people have viciously attacked Mantel in terms of physical appearance and 'attacking our poor princess kate' when they haven't even read the effing essay.

Hilary Mantel's essay on Kate Middleton is about how her public persona has been deliberately groomed and cultivated by the press agents and the press itself, within a historical context of other royal consorts. I find it odd, the timing of her suddenly having these charity appointments, a week after Mantel's essay. Even if that is just a co-incidence, which it may well be, Mantel's observations about her image are still very acute. It doesn't really matter whether she has had a charity appointment this week. Mantel's observations about her are still very perceptive. Have you read the essay?

Kate Middleton has been getting a good deal of bad press lately which is clearly why we had the 'DoC is bravely putting morning sickness behind her and throwing herself into work' story, followed within hours by the mean Mantel story. It's so bloody contrived it's insulting.

It's not just Cameron and Miliband leaping on bandwagons to defend KM from criticisms that weren't even made about her as a person.

It's the fact that the journalists reporting the 'story' have presumably had some kind of education, and have previously encountered philosophical concepts and long words.

So these journalists presumably realise that HM was actually commenting on the public/media perception of royal women, rather than calling KM 'plastic' and all the rest. Knowing that, they just choose to report it differently. Disingenuous, much?

Back to the point about media manipulation made above, I think.

Well the Daily Mail jumping to her defence is strange as they very regularly attack her for not working enough, focussing on holidays, and dropping heavy hints, without being too disrespectful, about the number of public engagements she takes on.

I suppose it's OK for them and their readers to bully the poor woman, but not for another woman, an intelligent one at that, to do so. Despite the fact she absolutely didn't.

There's a piece by Julie Burchill and A.N Wilson today which is very strange. I assume readers are supposed to agree with A.N. Wilson. Lnk if you're interested : www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2281371/Kate-Middleton-just-Diana-Lite-says-Julie-Burchill-A-N-Wilson-argues-Duchess-Cambridge-textbook-royal.html

I don't see why either of these two journalists have written these pieces.

I think this current set of sniping at Kate is either a litmus test or they have something

As someone said above, I think the speech was made a few weeks ago. Why has it only made frontpage news now?

The media can easily push the public's buttons and make the public follow their agenda. That is the power of the media. They are not independent and that is why many politicians want to restrict the percentage ownership of some media moguls.

Of course, the politicians are not independent either. They also have their agenda.

www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n04/hilary-mantel/royal-bodies

Here's another link to the original article by Hilary Mantel.

It makes sense, always, to read the original text, rather than the rather selective cut and paste jobs written by the media, with their very specific spin on the furore they've stirred up on a quiet news week.

As seeker, pofaced, princess and others too many to name check, have demonstrated by their analysis of the original comments by Hilary Mantel, some of us are commenting on the original text, some of us are commenting on somebody else's version of what was actually said.

The original London Review of Books lecture was over a week ago and wasn't deemed newsworthy until it was able to be discussed on the very first day that the D of C was returning to her charitable work. Cue acres of coverage about her lovely outfit and appropriate frothing and vitriol from the usual suspects.

What a sexist, cliched piece by AN Wilson. His conclusion: And if, as I suspect you do, you wish the monarchy to continue, you should be glad we have a healthy and charming young woman prepared to take on the job

Hmmn. I think we have already too many young healthy women in this country who are encouraged to think sitting around doing very little other than waiting for a man to make them pregnant and hopefully marry them is the height of personal achievement.

Really, Kate didn't have much of a future otherwise. She seems ambition-free, beyond social climbing, so if she hadn't snared Prince William, she would most likely have had to make do with a banker or Euro semi-aristo, because she wouldn't be posh enough for the major UK aristocratic families to want to marry into their midst, and shes probably too bland and too much of a blatant social climber.

The one bright spot is that it shows how our university system, so often derided for being class-biased, allows the classes to meet up, mingle and marry!

There was a tv documentary a few years back about royal reporting that was v revealing about the process.
They were talking about what happened with Princess Anne. When she was younger the tabloids had decided they hated her and were always winding her up to try and get her to be rude in return so they could have a story about it. Then she did a trip to Africa with Save The Children, in which they were all following her around waiting for her to put a foot wrong so they could go home and write another nasty piece about her. She failed to do so and they got increasingly desperate. Finally the last day of the tour came and one of them (clearly regarded by the others as a genius of royal reporting) realised that they could turn it round and make THAT the story - 'Beneath the grumpy exterior, Princess Anne is hardworking, digs latrines herself, has heart of gold' etc. But the only reason 'Princess Anne is decent human being' was a big story was because they had already built her up to be a spoilt uber-bitch.
It is all so stupid.

Pofaced '' ... DIRECTLY to me as first point of your post - really? Have you stopped for even a second to see how fucking patronising THAT is to another woman? It's up there with those calling others who don't (as you/they see it) 'share' your view overall being called 'thick'. One woman patronising/insulting another on a thread like this? Genuinely, you couldn't make it up.

And yes, I have read the essay, and yes, I suspect you and I as it happens (uber ironically) probably belong to the same school of thought overall. MY post however was simply on the quite specific nuance here of where thread had gone in terms of KM being laid into as a PERSON/A.N.Other woman (& one who - whether we agree with it or not - does NOT have the public right to reply). And (& with apologies for using a conjunction to start a sentence before that gets self-rightiously laid into) as a DIRECT response to those who have said that she should be doing more and suggesting HOW she could do that - when as they wrote it WAS precisely what she WAS doing. 'It' now being the ONLY route open to her to contribute in some way.

Less Nor do I think it makes her 'some kind of saint' (see above as to why I posted WHAT I posted). And my 'sad face' at end of my post was at women laying other women and in what seems like quite personal/attacking/'diminishing' ways and the bloody irony of that given thread stems from a pretty well written feminist essay.

Forgot - those private & public appearances yesterday were scheduled well in advance of lecture (although do not doubt the media have leapt on opportunity to link both together). They were also scheduled prior to any posts made on Monday.

YY stoic the deliberate timing of the story was wonderful for the media as it had the perfect combination of elements to make it newsworthy: royalty, award winning author, woman on woman comments (ignoring everything about Henry VIII in the original article), photos comparing the two women, opportunity to see baby bump, D of C returning to her charitable work after being ill etc, bandwagon comments by the PM etc

Agree Greenhill ESP. as the Fourth Estate DO have knowledge of upcoming public/private Charity work appearances and dates of KM et al. Hence waiting upon yesterday's visit to 'use' ehem, 'selected' bits of HM's essay.

TBH though, right now I'm more concerned and pissed off at the attitudes of some on thread than I am (& very definitely WAS) at the HM argument. Still cannot believe an obviously intelligent, articulate, and with strongly held views re women poster would start a post to me with ... as if talking to a dumb child rather than another grown woman. It's THAT shit that we all deal with every day that feels to me to be the bigger issue here - genuinely stupefied at level of innate patronisation. To and about another woman. Makes me want to weep tbh.

Stooic - Women are not laying into other women here - that is the Daily Mail false construct set up in terms of HM 'attacking' 'Princess Kate' and you are going along with it here for some unknown reason. The only reason anyone here has been called a 'thicko' or thereabouts is if they have attacked HM in an unpleasant manner without reading her essay. This doesn't mean YOU haven't read her essay. It is quite within people's rights to say, even if Mantel doesn't, that the DofC doesn't do enough or comes across in a certain way without it being labelled as 'bitchy' or as women attacking women. People are allowed to have a critical opinion of the anyone in the royal family.

The charity thing point out by all means without all the other confused stuff. Again, people are allowed to have an opinion that this is all incredibly coincidental timing.

And I mean NOONE here has called DofC 'fat' or 'ugly' or a 'cow' or any of the other appalling language used here against Mantel. Why are you not upset about those women attacking other women, rather than upset about a few criticizing the DofC's lack of public commitment endeavors?

A significant proportion of the Great British public, including Cameron and Milliband it would seem, are merely the Daily Mail's marionettes.

You seriously want to weep because I started a post with ?? Blimey. I seriously want to weep that people, WOMEN HERE, can call Mantel, one of the finest female voices of our time, all the insults under the sun, without having read her essay [Again , not YOU] in terms of her physical appearance.

No offence taken pofacedplot!!!

Presumably you're not a marionette,too clever by half,can see the media manipulation?
How utterly pompous of you,the proles believe anything media tell em.not clever you
These media threads always go same way,those who proclaim masses believe anything and shmlessly manipulated by media. Good job the seld appointed intelligentsia here to tell everyone else they're the manipulated gullible masses

No she's not above comment but whilst actually not asking,demanding or warranting a personal attack (about her personality, weight, figure) from what on here has been screamed as an intellectual writer is uncalled for....

Nope scottishmummy I'm well aware that I'm a marionette from time to time. Is there anyone who isn't maniulated by the media occasion? Times like this though I do find it helpful to take the time to read the source article.

Pofaced - with all due respect, I'm not sure how you can reconcile your statement of "Women are not laying into other women here" with your post to me overtly/deliberately/uber bloody patronisingly starting with ''???? Genuinely NO clue how you can reconcile those two.

Re. the: 'The charity thing point out by all means without all the other confused stuff'. Again, and with another WOW, thank you for giving me permission to be able to point something out; how gracious of you. As for 'other confused stuff' - it may be to you but it's not to me. That does not give you the right to prescribe what I can or cannot say; nor to sit in judgement at someone else's simply addressing one, very specific, very unedifying (to me anyway), nuance of thread - and a nuance that had thus far been unaddressed, vs. the (de facto very valid) objections to Mantel being personally insulted/criticised/dissed which have been widely discussed and objected to.

And AGAIN, you cannot presume to know all anyone else's thoughts on all might be - I detest the personal comments/attacks on HM, but made post I did for reasons above. It is arrogant in the extreme to presume you can 'know' the entire sum of someone else's thoughts/views, but most arrogant of all is the way you have addressed me via the 'sigh'... and now the 'without all the other confused stuff.

Would love to stick around but can't as have a funeral to arrange. Am hoping when I DO see thread again, it will NOT include the dismissal/patronising of/'correction' of A.N.Other woman. Find it nauseating and 'confusing' in the extreme given it seems wholly at odds with all of us having a female right to voice and view (& de facto an entire bundle of thoughts that no-one other than someone beyond arrogant would presume to 'know'.)