Prince Andrew has bolted to Balmoral

[Viviennemary]

This according to guess who. The DM of course. To avoid getting papers served says the article. Maybe he's just gone for a nice break. Accompanied by Fergie.

@BeckyWithTheAverageHair

[Mantel] implied that Catherine was a vacuous clothes horse.

She really didn't. Did you read her whole speech or just the few lines taken out of context by the tabloids?

"a jointed doll, a shop-window mannequin, with no personality of her own, designed by a committee and built by craftsmen, with a perfect plastic smile and the spindles of her limbs hand-turned and gloss-varnished, designed to breed in some manners, with dead eyes, selected for her role of princess because she was irreproachable: as painfully thin as anyone could wish, without quirks, without oddities, without the risk of the emergence of character, precision-made, machine-made, capable of going from perfect bride to perfect mother, with no messy deviation." Delightful

He totally is floundering. He can't hide. His cowardice and lying has made it worse.

Not as bad as that Sacoolas womann still driving round after she killed somebody. Where is her accountability.

@Brindlepaws

Derxa again, these were two sentences taken out of context that Hilary Mantel gave during a two hour lecture organised by the London Review of Books.

She wasn't attacking Katherine Middleton personally. She was making a wider feminist argument about the reasons why Katherine is so popular or "professional" as others have called her here. (And I agree btw, within the context of the role, she does a splendid job, hasn't put a foot wrong, and could teach the other members of the RF a thing or two.)

But Hilary Mantel was making a feminist argument about the role that Katherine is required to play as future queen and whether a monarchy is a suitable institution for a modern "grown up" country? And it's a legitimate question.

Why do we require our future queen to be thin, forever smiling, the perfect mother, camera-ready after childbirth, dressed in beautiful clothes and silent? Is this a feminist ideal? Is this the role we want a prominent woman in our modern society to play? Is this the role model we want our daughters to follow? (Note the word "role" model. This isn't personal.)

Hilary Mantel also spoke about the words the press used to describe Katherine eg "weak" when suffering a pregnancy-related illness, and "radiant" once better. It's about how women are categorised by the press.

Can you not see that this is far from a personal attack on Katherine Middleton? In fact, if anything, it is a cry for Katherine's true character to be able to emerge a little from the constraints of the "perfection" that society imposes on all of us, especially women and mothers.

The point of feminism is that women are able to make their own choices. Catherine has made hers and we have to respect them surely. Princess Anne tells people to Fuck Off, wears unfashionable clothes and is the antithesis of the Duchess of Cambridge. What about Queen Victoria? Loved her husband and hated children. Certainly not thin. She just did as she pleased.

On Kate, I also agree that her strong family are probably key; the Windsors might look like a case for social services but hers certainly dont, and I just hope William appreciates them.
And should W&K ever split there'd be many complications, but I doubt her lacking support would be one of them

Carole Middleton is the ultimate momanger. Like Jenner, except posh. I saw on SM, an editor who alway writes sycophantic puff pieces about Kate talk about their meetings. My understand is that the Middletons are trying their best to go up the aristo ladder as they are looked down upon as the poor nephew who was kindly looked upon by a generous aunt. Landed gentry, they are not.

To what extent they would protect their daughter, who knows. I feel they would encourage her to get that crown whatever the cost and keep them in the eyes of the world.

Aristos are incredibly snobby, there are some who can make a claim to roots dating back for ages and even look down on the 'German' rf. I read somewhere that William had an eye on one of those girls, and the father discouraged her, just from pure snobbishness.

Derxa

"a jointed doll, a shop-window mannequin, with no personality of her own, designed by a committee and built by craftsmen, with a perfect plastic smile and the spindles of her limbs hand-turned and gloss-varnished, designed to breed in some manners, with dead eyes, selected for her role of princess because she was irreproachable: as painfully thin as anyone could wish, without quirks, without oddities, without the risk of the emergence of character, precision-made, machine-made, capable of going from perfect bride to perfect mother, with no messy deviation." Delightful

Again she is asking us to think about the role that we ask the Queen and the future queen to play. In this day and age do we want our royal role models to be silent loyal wives without opinions of their own? Silent in the face of adultery? Perfect and supposedly without flaws? What does this expectation do to them?

She is saying that Kate is not allowed a personality of her own. Why are you taking it so literally? Hilary Mantel is a creative a writer fhs! Are you taking the bit about being "designed by a committee and built by craftsmen" literally too? It's about society's expectations about a royal wife. The strong language is designed to shake us out of our complacency about "tradition" and "complacency" and "it's always been done this way"! She is asking us to sit up and think!

@derxa

In a 2013 speech on media and royal women at the British Museum, Mantel commented on Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, saying in passing that the Duchess was forced to present herself publicly as a personality-free "shop window mannequin" whose sole purpose is to deliver an heir to the throne You might agree with her but what a nasty thing to say publicly. And she is Dame Hilary Mantel. Why did she accept a damehood from the very institution she hates?

This was discussed to death at the time, wasn't it? She wasn't criticising Kate, she was criticising the institution that obliges her to present herself like that.

@Brindlepaws puts it better than I can re Mantel.

Silent in the face of adultery? Again nasty speculation.

Sorry if asked before how is Victoria paying the lawyers it's expensive to have the best.

I wonder who is bank rolling Andrew too

@Serenster

If someone sues you in a New York court, Rousette, I’m sure you might be quite pleased to know you can challenge its jurisdiction over you, as. UK citizen and resident. This is, as I have said a few times before, a perfectly usual move in this kind of situation - how you get to floundering from that I am not sure.

Yes, but if your goal were to clear your name, (Because you think you should be entitled to dress up and wear a uniform at official events) you would also have to weigh up the advantages of not going to court against the disadvantage of creating the impression that you are avoiding justice.

The Epstein case isn’t going away and this will continue to loom over the entire family. Outside of a court room PA’s self defence (photo was fake, he doesn’t sweat) has done enough to infer that he is guilty of something bad in the eyes of the public, but the official RF line seems to be that this will all go away and Andrew will be rehabilitated and he can resume his duties.

This isn’t just about guilty/not guilty, it’s about his apparent desire to preserve his royal status.

@derxa

Silent in the face of adultery? Again nasty speculation.

Like Mantel, I don't think @Brindlepaws was being literal about Kate. It's a general point about royal women. Diana was expected to stay quiet over Charles and Camilla's affair.

@derxa

Silent in the face of adultery? Again nasty speculation.

No - general expectation of Royal wives. If you want a clear practical example, Diana.

It’s very clear that she is talking about the demands of the institution.

X post!

@derxa

Silent in the face of adultery? Again nasty speculation.

You still haven't got the point Derxa and you are conveniently deflecting the many explanations you have received about this! It's not personal. "Silent in the face of adultery" is not meant personally about any one individual (although it is interesting that you have read it that way!). It is the unwritten rule though isn't it, what the institution expects, what we expect. It's not the done thing to complain. Particularly for women.

@Serenster
oh dear

When I say PA is floundering, I am not applying this solely to the US justice system. I know full well the breadth of your knowledge of legal matters is way way beyond mine.
I mean 'floundering' in general with the whole situation, I'll be more careful what I day next time.
Other posters got what I meant

Aristos are incredibly snobby, there are some who can make a claim to roots dating back for ages

I myself can trace my ancestry back to Charlemagne.

(But then so can anyone else who can track down a recent European ancestor)

You still haven't got the point Derxa and you are conveniently deflecting the many explanations you have received about this! It's not personal. "Silent in the face of adultery" is not meant personally about any one individual (although it is interesting that you have read it that way!). It is the unwritten rule though isn't it, what the institution expects, what we expect. It's not the done thing to complain. Particularly for women. Yes Diana was expected to be silent about documented adultery and in the past it was accepted but not just by Royal women. Women in general. But William hasn't committed adultery. Nasty journalists like Giles Coren has speculated about it.
I'm on a nasty thread about Jamie and Jules Oliver which is making allegations about their marriage. Jules is being portrayed as exactly the same as Catherine. On MN. On a site that is supposed to be supportive of women and their choices.

Yes Diana was expected to be silent about documented adultery and in the past it was accepted but not just by Royal women. Women in general. But William hasn't committed adultery. Nasty journalists like Giles Coren has speculated about it.
I'm on a nasty thread about Jamie and Jules Oliver which is making allegations about their marriage. Jules is being portrayed as exactly the same as Catherine. On MN. On a site that is supposed to be supportive of women and their choices.

Well then you are on the same side as Hilary Mantel then Derxa

But William hasn't committed adultery. Nasty journalists like Giles Coren has speculated about it.

How do you know this for sure. It was reported by international news, Giles only talked about it when it was already out and he is part of the Norfolk turnips.

Well then you are on the same side as Hilary Mantel then Derxa smile Not really. I didn't use the pretext of attacking the press portrayal and expectations of Royal wives to write nasty comments.

But that was a general point on royal women - nothing was said about William. I'm not sure why this is so hard to grasp.

PA should absolutely be forced to account to the UK police.

Does any agreement that VG signed, have any weight if she was a trafficked teenager - even as an adult her ability to protect herself legally may have been compromised by her earlier experiences.

Not really. I didn't use the pretext of attacking the press portrayal and expectations of Royal wives to write nasty comments.

You could just as sensibly argue that you are using this thread as a pretext to attack Mantel. However I think it is more likely that you have got the wrong end of the stick and are just refusing to back down.

Why is it so difficult to believe that somebody who has written extensively about Ann Boleyn and Jane Seymour isn’t making a general point about the role of royal wives, but instead has a personal vendetta against the Duchess of Cambridge?

@derxa

Well then you are on the same side as Hilary Mantel then Derxa smile Not really. I didn't use the pretext of attacking the press portrayal and expectations of Royal wives to write nasty comments.

Yes Derxa because the main objective of Hilary Mantel, a brilliant writer who was once told that her physical symptoms of illness were caused by "ambition", is to make nasty comments about other women just for the sake of it?