General News for the Duchess of Cambridge 1: November 2010-February 2017

[Tiggersk8]

Very sad that after a life trying to be a useful person and succeeding brillantly, there are still people who consider Prince Charles to not be much more than an animal.... In which world do you live?

How many people did you or Hilary Mantel help out of the gutter into a new, meaningful life? But no, because a lot of people want to look at the Royals they have no value? How shallow a view is this?

Not just Charles, but Anne...And the DoE...And HM....

But hey, I guess all of the hard and good work they've all done to help out in the here and now doesn't really count because it's in the here and now.

I'll be so happy when this entire mess dies away. If it ever does.

 

[Frelinghighness]

I certainly do not consider the BRF, to be redeuced to "royal ribbon cutters". Diplomacy has become very underrated in our world, and the BRF, HM in particular, are skilled and valued diplomats, forging relationshsips and creating opportunies where they would not otherwise exist.
As far as Mantel's article, I will have the opportunity to read it tonight, but teachers out there, this seems to be a great moment on how to teach taking remarks out of context, as the media and the PM has taken her remarks out of context.
However, reading the excerpt of her remarks, a few posts back, likening the rf to pandas,..."pandas and royal persons alike are expensive to conserve and ill-adapted to any modern environment." does not ring true to me. I do believe they are more adapted than we commoners to the modern environment, but perhaps, I have taken the remark out of context?

 

[Lumutqueen]

...As far as Mantel's article...taking remarks out of context.

I don't get the "out of context" argument for Mantel or for anyone else. She was speaking at a lecture about Media and Royal Women. Several articles provide her entire speech, what more context do people need? Her argument about panda's is insightful and makes perfect sense to me.

 

[royalistbert]

At the end of the day aren't all men and woman born to breed. For the Human race to survive we must breed. Every animal must breed to survive. For the Monarchy they must breed to survive. Its a fact of life.

 

[HRHHermione]

I don't get the "out of context" argument for Mantel or for anyone else. She was speaking at a lecture about Media and Royal Women. Several articles provide her entire speech, what more context do people need? Her argument about panda's is insightful and makes perfect sense to me.

Many more did not- and the headlines called it a vicious attack on Kate and took the remarks about Kate and did not include the rest of her speech.

 

[cepe]

The Times has an interesting summary - pro mantell

Kate Middleton may actually agree with Hilary Mantel | The Times

key quotes for me:

1. A considered, clever speech by one of our greatest living writers has us bad-mouthing anyone who points out that the Emperor is naked. Yes, she might have mentioned the genuine relationship between Kate and William, but this wasn’t about personalities: it was entreating us not to behave like spectators at Bedlam. The most outraged “protectors” of Kate are often those buying the publications that scrutinise every detail of her appearance.

2. All this for a speech that urged us to be less brutish to royal women. Which the lynch mob would have known if they’d bothered to read it properly.

3. If a male writer or historian had proffered such views, would the public have set about attacking his looks, his weight, his teeth, his fertility?

It is the last point that has me raging - and I mean raging. Hilary Mantell has been pilloried by some of the UK media because she is jealous of not being fertile, as Catherine is. HM uffered from severe entrmetrosis which led to her having her womb removed - and this is to blame for her jealousy. I am so so disgusted by this, I just cannot express my anger at this. And the writer in the Times is correct - a man writing about this would not have been attacked as HM has been attacked and the majority of those attakers are women. I am appalled.

 

[AfricanAUSSIE]

I agree with you 100% Cepe, it is indeed appalling!!

 

[GracieGiraffe]

People accuse Hilary Mantell of being vicious and yet are just as vicious and disgusting as what they attack, and perhaps more so. It's such an effective way to undercut an purportedly misogynistic attack with more misogyny.....

While we're on the subject, has the PM "manned up" yet and apologized? I've been at work all day.

 

[Frelinghighness]

Very interesting article by Mantell. I can't imagine the pols or tabloids took the time to read it.
She depicts historical figures very well, loved the Marie Antointette and Henry VIII parts. Every word and nuance about Diana felt so true.
Her honesty in describing her evening at Buck Palace and the reaction of the partygoers to HM was very well done.
Not a London times subscriber so I could only read the intro!

 

[AfricanAUSSIE]

Giraffe, I've seen nothing that points to any apology from him.

 

[cepe]

I agree with you 100% Cepe, it is indeed appalling!!

I am so happy that you and Gracie agree with my sentiments. It is good to know that someone agrees with my view, even though I expressed it as anger. Women are so easily vilified when expressing strong views (hence the anger against HM) but really 9/10 times all we are really doing is stating support for other women.

Thank you again.

 

[Trillian]

...It must be frustrating though- to put so much care into choosing your words and work so hard to express some very subtle emotions and thoughts in an accessible way and then have so many people criticize without bothering to learn the context.

And I would have gone along with your position on this, until I heard the extract from her lecture that ABC local radio Sydney played this afternoon. The tone Ms Mantel used was the sort when you're giving an "aside" comment that's on the mean side. Now this may be a dialectic thing or a regional thing, but if someone used that tone when talking about or referring to me, I wouldn't be very happy.

 

[cepe]

Trillian - look back over this thread and read for yourself the whole speech. Im sorry but its 02:55 here and Im literally falling over on my feet (taking pills for chronic insomnia). She was not personalising her lecture - her final paragraph is about protecting royals, not vilifying them.

 

[Trillian]

I have read the whole speech - yesterday. Today, ABC702 played the passage re the Duchess. This was Ms Mantel's own voice speaking her own words.

 

[GracieGiraffe]

I am so happy that you and Gracie agree with my sentiments...

You're welcome.
If you read internet commentary long enough, you see that women are treated differently from men - look at Will and Kate - she takes an incredibly harsher rap than Will for whatever media driven drama is occurring at the moment.

 

[madeleineleigh]

Very sad that after a life trying to be a useful person and succeeding brillantly, there are still people who consider Prince Charles to not be much more than an animal.... In which world do you live?

How many people did you or Hilary Mantel help out of the gutter into a new, meaningful life? But no, because a lot of people want to look at the Royals they have no value? How shallow a view is this?

No one, neither myself nor Hilary Mantel, is saying that the royal family are literally animals. I hope you have heard of these things called metaphor and simile; a famous example is Shakespeare's "All the world’s a stage,
And all the men and women merely players". He certainly does not mean the earth is literally a stage and we are all literally actors.

The animal metaphor refers in particular to the way the royal family are now largely treated as animals in a very gilded zoo, there for the media to gaze at, pick over and scrutinise. This probably also applies to all of us here on this forum to some degree too, for even if it is in kindness, it is still a similar relationship.

As to the charity thing, their active engagement in charity is a relatively recent phenomenon, largely to do with them trying to find something to do now that they lack the former tasks of royalty to undertake. Of course, this charity work is appreciated and good for society and I'm sure some of them truly enjoy helping people. But many people in the world do charity work, and those who don't, well perhaps they lack the time because they work full time, earning a living to support their families. And to justify the royal family simply because of the charity work they do is truly simplistic. For example, if we ceased to find the royal family via tax payers this money could go straight to charities or be used to leverage fund raising for charities via other means. I am not suggesting this be done, merely that the same kind of societal benefit could be created in numerous ways.

(And just in case you wondered, I am a volunteer surf life saver in addition to my full time job. So, I haven't helped people out of the gutter; I've literally saved them from death. I would also add that Hilary makes a huge contribution to society via her art which enriches people's lives. Not that any of this should matter when trying to engage in a rational, adult discussion about an interesting topic.)

 

[Trillian]

...If you read internet commentary long enough, you see that women are treated differently from men..

Don't need to read online for this, just read the newspapers, listen to shock jocks or question time in Parliament to notice how differently female pollies including our PM are treated/spoken about from the blokes.

 

[Frelinghighness]

I have read the whole speech - yesterday. Today, ABC702 played the passage re the Duchess. This was Ms Mantel's own voice speaking her own words.

I read the piece and just went back and listened to the first mention of Kate, the first paragraph and the audience is actually laughing with Ms Mantel after the remark, "once she gets over being sick, the press will then find that she is radiant". This was immediately after the mannequin description. She doesn't sound nasty at all to me or that she's making any kind of dig. AND, the audience got it right away, you can tell that from several punctuations of laughter in the first paragraph.
She just sounds like someone who has difficulty breathing and speaking, she may have asthma or another condition.
Maybe you're referring to another passage later on... I'll leave that till tomorrow.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

The Times? Is that a legitimate newspaper? I seem to recall it is a serious ones a not a rag like the DM. Am I a bad American if I am also waiting for the British PM to apologize?

 

[HRHHermione]

You're welcome.

If you read internet commentary long enough, you see that women are treated differently from men - look at Will and Kate - she takes an incredibly harsher rap than Will for whatever media driven drama is occurring at the moment.

Absolutely. I think very few people think of themselves as misogynists, but you can definitely see that misogyny is alive and well if you spend any time following prominent women in media. There's a huge double standard in the way they're treated. I think you guys are absolutely right that this lecture would have been received very differently had it been given by a man.

 

[EIIR]

Don't need to read online for this, just read the newspapers, listen to shock jocks or question time in Parliament to notice how differently female pollies including our PM are treated/spoken about from the blokes.

The reason David Cameron hasn't apologised is because, if one takes the time to actually watch the interview he gave, he couches his statement by saying that he hadn't seen the whole lecture yet (he was on an official visit to India), but from the snippets he'd seen in the media (the same that we all saw at first), he felt she was wrong. He didn't have all the information and he admitted it when he made his comments.

I hope this demonstrates to everyone here once and for all that, given all the reader comments on the DM website's coverage of Will and Kate in Mustique last week which pretty much ripped them to shreds, and this week's many thousands of comments supporting Kate, singing her praises, protecting her against a perceived wrong, the comments section on the Daily Fail website is indicative of precisely NOTHING!

 

[GracieGiraffe]

I don't agree with this at all. If he takes the time to comment, it is no excuse that he does not have all the facts (and it's really in fact outrageous for a man in his position to do so) - he knows his commentary has great import. And if he knows he does not have all the facts, he really has no business getting involved in what has turned out to be a tabloid drama on Kate. In fact, once he gets involved, he adds to the tabloid drama on the Kate, and one would think this is not what he wants unless absolutely necessary.

If you take the time to comment, you take the time to apologize.

 

[NGalitzine]

Has the Leader of The Opposition apologized? He had pretty much the same response as the PM. I doubt very much either leader will apologize publically, any more than any of the columnists and editors will apologize or for that matter any members of the public who responded in newspapers or other public forums.

 

[julliette]

The reason David Cameron hasn't apologised is because, if one takes the time to actually watch the interview he gave, he couches his statement by saying that he hadn't seen the whole lecture yet (he was on an official visit to India), but from the snippets he'd seen in the media (the same that we all saw at first), he felt she was wrong. He didn't have all the information and he admitted it when he made his comments.

Thanks for sharing that he clarified he hadn't read the entire speech.

I think this whole issue of the PM is totally overrated. I agree that his comments were wrong but as he said he hadn't read the whole lecture yet. I see things like: The PM is in a trip to India, obviously he doesn't read all the british media while there, just the most important and a summary his assistants do to him. So, it's understandable he hadn't read the speech. In one of the ocasions, one of the journalist asked him about his thoughts about this issue and he answered that from what he read (ie, the press) he felt HM was wrong but he clarified he had not read the speech yet, which is to me the same as saying I can be wrong and change my ideas once I read the speech. So, he did nothing that bad, IMO.

Could he have apologize? Sure, even if just a small tweet. But he is still in India, he probably haven't read the speech yet. Maybe when he returns home.

Milliband on the other hand, is at home, could have read the speech perfectly.

In any case, I don't think they will apoligize at all. But I also don't think the PM comments are such a bid deal at all

EDIT: To me, the biggest problem is with the press, and they SHOULD apologize

 

[Kataryn]

My, I personally read the whole essay as being cruel to Catherine as well. Yes, she points out that it is a problem of public perception and yes, she shows she is one of the public herself, no more, no less. She has her own opinion about Royal women and that's alright with me, but I don't share her opinions and I find the way she describes her view on things as uncalled for for the "real" Catherine - even if I will never meet her and find out who she is.

You can rest assured that the PM has advisors who are educated enough to be able to read such an essay as well, evaluate it and brief the PM on it. As I share his views I have no problems with him coming to the defense of a Royal lady who according to her position has no way to defend herself. Ymmv.

 

[NGalitzine]

Hilary is not a stupid person. I am sure she knew her remarks would be reported and could cause some controversy. In fact I rather think she rather enjoys being controversial. This is after all the woman who once said "no self respecting person would be a Roman Catholic today" which I am sure she knew would offend more than one person and would be a rather controversial comment.

 

[EIIR]

I don't agree with this at all. If he takes the time to comment, it is no excuse that he does not have all the facts (and it's really in fact outrageous for a man in his position to do so) - he knows his commentary has great import. And if he knows he does not have all the facts, he really has no business getting involved in what has turned out to be a tabloid drama on Kate. In fact, once he gets involved, he adds to the tabloid drama on the Kate, and one would think this is not what he wants unless absolutely necessary.

 

[GracieGiraffe]

No matter how misinformed he was by press or staff, he still owes Mantel an apology, as does any other public figure who spoke about her, as does the press.

Simply because these others have not issued an apology does not put any of the others off the hook. Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[Mariel]

I am guessing that these public figures EXPECT to be slandered at every turn. The journalist, the PM, Catherine, they all expect nasty things to be said. If they can keep human hearts within themselves in such situations, congratulations to their strength and humanity. Our hearts harden when slandered, so probably they have all taken courses in how to not take any of this even slightly seriously. We are the dupes who do so? I don't know. I have had to learn to have a hard outer shell while retaining a delicate heart for the purpose of love. But it took me many years to achieve that. The public figures are no doubt coached in how to get on top of it early on.

 

[cinrit]

I'm confused as to why Cameron should issue an apology. He stated his opinion in a respectful manner, and even attached a condition. Maybe he's read the entire speech and still feels the way he does (I know I do). If everyone had to issue an apology for stating they don't agree with something someone said, we'd all be running around apologizing or nodding "yes" so that we don't offend anyone by disagreeing with them.