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

[cepe]

This is yet another example of media spin by taking an interesting perspective on how royals are treated and turning it against the royals. Perhaps the journalists aren't bright enough to understand what is being said. I've read HM's books and they are outstanding.

As for Westwood - lets all stop buying clothes and see what happens to the economy or maybe we follow Catherine's example and just never buy Westwood.

As was previously written, this is all an example of the media getting back at William, Catherine and Harry for recent comments and attitude they have made about the press.

 

[Kataryn]

T
Here is the link to the full piece should anyone want to read it without the editorial input of the various royal reporters: Hilary Mantel · Royal Bodies · LRB 21 February 2013

But what a hyprocrite she is: first she writes about Catherine in a very cruel manner herself, then she finishes her essay with these words:

Cheerful curiosity can easily become cruelty. It can easily become fatal. We don’t cut off the heads of royal ladies these days, but we do sacrifice them, and we did memorably drive one to destruction a scant generation ago. History makes fools of us, makes puppets of us, often enough. But it doesn’t have to repeat itself. In the current case, much lies within our control. 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. Get your pink frilly frocks out, zhuzh up your platinum locks. We are all Barbara Cartland now. The pen is in our hands. A happy ending is ours to write.

(End of quote).

So back off and not be a brute, Ms. Mantel. No need to publish sentences like this: "It’s rather that I saw Kate becoming a jointed doll on which certain rags are hung. In those days she was a shop-window mannequin, with no personality of her own, entirely defined by what she wore" Or: "Kate seems to have been 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. She appears precision-made, machine-made..."

One need not become a Barbara Cartland kind of writer to do justice to Royal women. What about simply accepting that other people have other lives, goals, aims, that not every woman needs to flaunt her higher education and personal tastes to the world only because the world wants her to do it. So we don't know what Catherine reads. So what? With her background, I'm convinced she reads and thinks about it and has people to talk about her reading experiences. She just does not want to share that information with the likes of Hilary Mantel or Richard Kay...

 

[EIIR]

Hilary Mantel - Prince Charles expresses opinions and reveals aspects of his personality to the world and is then derided as an interfering oddball who's a few sandwiches short of a picnic. I don't blame Kate for not wanting to go down that route.

 

[Lumutqueen]

What have I missed? Work's kept me busy!

 

[EIIR]

The Prime Minister has now been drawn into the controversy over Mantel's comments, calling them "completely wrong" according to the BBC News channel.

To put this in context, the PM is currently on an official visit to India. The fact that he felt it necessary to publicly comment on this is totally bonkers.

 

[Hollie]

I am willing to bet 9 in 10 people who commented on the Hilary Mantel's comment did not read the full actual speech

And I feel quite sorry for the author because I feel that piece was pretty well written. This is like the official portrait "scandal" all over again.

 

[EIIR]

Hilary Mantel is certainly intelligent enough to know exactly how her comments would be taken when she made them. She knows we live in a soundbite world where people don't read essays, they just consume a few lines summarising them, if that. She should've taken greater care when addressing one of the world's most talked about individuals.

 

[Dman]

I'm just feel bad that these comments was kinda distracting from HRH official engagement and Hope House.

 

[cepe]

HM was actually supporting the royals and being critical of the press. The press/media have selected elements from the speech and presented it as critical of Catherine. At the core of her argument is that the media judge Catherine on her looks and clothes, and that is all they present of her. and let's be honest, we have said that in this forum. Today's reports are not about Action on Addiction but how she looks and her grey dress.

What is truly ironic is that the anti-Catherine troll fest that has been criticising her for weeks have come out in major support of Catherine. and how have they done it? By making gross personal comments about HMs appearance.

 

[HRHHermione]

But what a hyprocrite she is: first she writes about Catherine in a very cruel manner herself, then she finishes her essay with these words:

Cheerful curiosity can easily become cruelty. It can easily become fatal. We don’t cut off the heads of royal ladies these days, but we do sacrifice them, and we did memorably drive one to destruction a scant generation ago. History makes fools of us, makes puppets of us, often enough. But it doesn’t have to repeat itself. In the current case, much lies within our control. 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. Get your pink frilly frocks out, zhuzh up your platinum locks. We are all Barbara Cartland now. The pen is in our hands. A happy ending is ours to write.

(End of quote).

So back off and not be a brute, Ms. Mantel. No need to publish sentences like this: "It’s rather that I saw Kate becoming a jointed doll on which certain rags are hung. In those days she was a shop-window mannequin, with no personality of her own, entirely defined by what she wore" Or: "Kate seems to have been 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. She appears precision-made, machine-made..."

One need not become a Barbara Cartland kind of writer to do justice to Royal women. What about simply accepting that other people have other lives, goals, aims, that not every woman needs to flaunt her higher education and personal tastes to the world only because the world wants her to do it. So we don't know what Catherine reads. So what? With her background, I'm convinced she reads and thinks about it and has people to talk about her reading experiences. She just does not want to share that information with the likes of Hilary Mantel or Richard Kay...

You should go back and read the piece again. The "cruel" remarks were not about Kate herself- they were about the public persona created for her by the media and of how she's portrayed within that sphere. They were not about Kate personally- she was dismantling media archetypes and pointing out that for most of her marriage, Kate was spoken of only in terms of what she wore- no real attempts were made by the media to cover any other aspect of her story, plus she's private so there wasn't much else to cover. Now that she's pregnant, she's being spoken of only in terms of her pregnancy and a whole new madonna-like media myth will emerge, which will still totally ignore Kate's intellect and personality. To succeed in her role, she has to hold herself back and be as neutral as possible and it must occasionally be frustrating. I think this piece nailed that.

And Hillary Mantel did not insinuate that Kate doesn't read or even what she ought to read- she opened with a thought experiment about which book she'd give a famous person to read, and chose Kate and a book on the role of royal women and how they've been perceived at different historical points. It's a good answer.

I honestly think that Kate is educated enough to read that piece herself should she wish to do it and understand that it was not insulting to her. It's if anything, quite sympathetic.

 

[Kataryn]

You should go back and read the piece again. The "cruel" remarks were not about Kate herself- they were about the public persona created for her by the media and of how she's portrayed within that sphere.

snip

And Hillary Mantel did not insinuate that Kate doesn't read or even what she ought to read- she opened with a thought experiment about which book she'd give a famous person to read, and chose Kate and a book on the role of royal women and how they've been perceived at different historical points. It's a good answer.

I honestly think that Kate is educated enough to read that piece herself should she wish to do it and understand that it was not insulting to her. It's if anything, quite sympathetic.

Actually, she was talking about her own perception of Catherine, Charles & the queen. I mean, Charles has nice suits, but surely there is more to him than being just a person that is invited and then sent away because curiosity has been served and people long for a whiff of "real life" which he hasn't to offer?

Or does Catherine really need a book about Marie Antoinette and fashion? Fot the reason Hilary Mantel wants to give it to her?

But I see that you interpret this essay different than I do and that's your right.

 

[HRHHermione]

Actually, she was talking about her own perception of Catherine, Charles & the queen. I mean, Charles has nice suits, but surely there is more to him than being just a person that is invited and then sent away because curiosity has been served and people long for a whiff of "real life" which he hasn't to offer?

Or does Catherine really need a book about Marie Antoinette and fashion? Fot the reason Hilary Mantel wants to give it to her?

But I see that you interpret this essay different than I do and that's your right.

As of course, you are welcome to your own interpretation as well, but in my opinion, this was a fairly brilliant work of media criticism and of criticism towards the public's relationship to the royal family. That's why she brought up her own perceptions- they were as a member of the public subject to the same sort of rude curiosity and awe as everyone else. She was criticizing the watchers, not the watched- and tracing how ready the public is to explore matters that for anyone else would be private and sacrosanct, notably what happens in royal bodies, particularly with regard to pregnancy.

This quote was particularly interesting to me: "No one understood what Henry saw in Jane, who was not pretty and not young. The imperial ambassador sneered that ‘no doubt she has a very fine enigme’: which is to say, secret part. We have arrived at the crux of the matter: a royal lady is a royal vagina. 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."


Do you see any parallels between that and the way Kate's pregnancy has been treated by the media, even long before we knew there was a pregnancy?

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

The Prime Minister has now been drawn into the controversy over Mantel's comments, calling them "completely wrong" according to the BBC News channel.

To put this in context, the PM is currently on an official visit to India. The fact that he felt it necessary to publicly comment on this is totally bonkers.

Seriously!? David Cameron makes a comment on this crap topic??? Doesnt Cameron have more pressing things to do than this?

Britain is becoming paranoid as soon as the word "Kate" is mentioned somewhere. I personally dont get the hostile tone of those comments but it is an opinion after all, people should take a long deep breath and move on.

 

[Kataryn]

As of course, you are welcome to your own interpretation as well, but in my opinion, this was a fairly brilliant work of media criticism and of the public's relationship to the royal family. That's why she brought up her own perceptions- they were as a member of the public subject to the same sort of rude curiosity and awe as everyone else. She was criticizing the watchers, not the watched- and tracing how ready the public is to explore matters that for anyone else would be private and sacrosanct, notably what happens in royal bodies, particularly with regard to pregnancy.

This quote was particularly interesting to me: "No one understood what Henry saw in Jane, who was not pretty and not young. The imperial ambassador sneered that ‘no doubt she has a very fine enigme’: which is to say, secret part. We have arrived at the crux of the matter: a royal lady is a royal vagina. 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."


Do you see any parallels between that and the way Kate's pregnancy has been treated by the media, even long before we knew there was a pregnancy?

Yes, she is right to the point here. But do you really think she needed to write down her own perception of Catherine in such "inhuman" terms when she wanted to point out that while it is "human" to do so it is in fact "inhuman" to do so. Yes, we can change the way Royalty is percieved, but we need not to put on frilly clothes and become a Barbara Cartland-copy.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Just heard Hilary on the telly and her words were her words not anything to do with 'public perception' of Catherine. She said Catherine, as she was, was practically designed.

 

[HRHHermione]

Yes, she is right to the point here. But do you really think she needed to write down her own perception of Catherine in such "inhuman" terms when she wanted to point out that while it is "human" to do so it is in fact "inhuman" to do so. Yes, we can change the way Royalty is percieved, but we need not to put on frilly clothes and become a Barbara Cartland-copy.

See, I actually thought that what she said was sympathetic. She was referring to how Kate's media persona was developing. I'll quote her fully here on the part that most people are viewing as an attack on Kate:

"It’s not that I think we’re heading for a revolution. It’s rather that I saw Kate becoming a jointed doll on which certain rags are hung. In those days she was a shop-window mannequin, with no personality of her own, entirely defined by what she wore. These days she is a mother-to-be, and draped in another set of threadbare attributions. 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."


She's on Kate's side here, or at least totally neutral towards her. She's seeing how the press and public are portraying a young woman and her life, dreams and hopes- and how limiting it is. First she gets treated as a perfect model, a clothes horse- and her actions are generally brushed aside and her clothes and perfect smile dominate the press stories about her. Now- she's a mother to be, and every story about her will be about her joy, her radiance, and her utter fulfillment at becoming a mother- even though we'll have no idea whether that's true or not.

Her private life has actually managed to stay remarkably private- and in the absence of real detail, the press and public have filled in who they think Kate is as a stand in for who she probably really is in her private life.

I also think she nailed the Diana effect in that particular piece- what particular gift of Diana's made her so sympathetic and charismatic a figure, and how that gift was also a curse. I don't think she was making an unfavorable comparison between Kate and Diana there- if anything, I think she's probably happy for Kate that she doesn't have a similar personality and won't be thrust onto the same pedestal so that everyone can enjoy watching her fall and then helping her back up so she can do it again, which was what Diana's relationship with the media was like for a long time.

She brought up Diana's fondness for Barbra Cartland to mention that Diana probably didn't have much historical context for how the royal body is treated- she had to learn on her own, painfully and publicly, over and over again and she probably didn't know going in that her role wouldn't be happy wife and mother but instead this rather mythic figure that provoked mystifying strong emotions in others. She was raised on a diet of romantic fantasy and she found the fantasy very difficult to reconcile with her reality.

And the last paragraph was particularly well done: "It may be that the whole phenomenon of monarchy is irrational, but that doesn’t mean that when we look at it we should behave like spectators at Bedlam. Cheerful curiosity can easily become cruelty. It can easily become fatal. We don’t cut off the heads of royal ladies these days, but we do sacrifice them, and we did memorably drive one to destruction a scant generation ago. History makes fools of us, makes puppets of us, often enough. But it doesn’t have to repeat itself. In the current case, much lies within our control. 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. Get your pink frilly frocks out, zhuzh up your platinum locks. We are all Barbara Cartland now. The pen is in our hands. A happy ending is ours to write."


All she meant by this was that we, the public, have the power to make sure that Kate is treated better and with more respect than her late mother in law- that we should remember the role the public played in that particular drama and try very hard to not repeat history. We can try to make sure Kate's story has a happier ending than Diana's, and we can do that by not being brutal towards her or expecting that her body belongs to the public and we're all welcome to look in on it.

 

[HRHHermione]

Just heard Hilary on the telly and her words were her words not anything to do with 'public perception' of Catherine. She said Catherine, as she was, was practically designed.

Designed by who?

 

[Kataryn]

As for the difference between Henry VIII and William Cambridge and his family: Henry was an only son of the first souverain of the Tudor dynasty. His sisters had married abroad into other dynasties (Margaret) or left only daughters (Mary). So he was in dire need of a male heir, thus reducing his wifes of course to "Royal wombs".

Today it wouldn't matter if Catherine become a mother or not. There are enough people in line of succession anyway, so there is no real need other than some mystic feeling that the direct line should be preserved to see her as anything but William's chosen wife.

 

[HRHHermione]

As for the difference between Henry VIII and William Cambridge and his family: Henry was an only son of the first souverain of the Tudor dynasty. His sisters had married abroad into other dynasties (Margaret) or left only daughters (Mary). So he was in dire need of a male heir, thus reducing his wifes of course to "Royal wombs".

Today it wouldn't matter if Catherine become a mother or not. There are enough people in line of succession anyway, so there is no real need other than some mystic feeling that the direct line should be preserved to see her as anything but William's chosen wife.

It wasn't meant to be a direct comparison between the two situations- merely an example of how comfortable outsiders and the public have always been with discussing and questioning something as intensely personal as the sex life and reproductive choices of the royals.

Kate was barely married before the tabloids had her on baby watch. Everything she ate, said, and all of her interactions with mothers and children were watched by the press with the "Is she or isn't she?" story attached. Now that she is pregnant, every detail anyone can get is being pored over by a public that wants to know everything.

 

[GracieGiraffe]

Seriously!? David Cameron makes a comment on this crap topic??? Doesnt Cameron have more pressing things to do than this?

Britain is becoming paranoid as soon as the word "Kate" is mentioned somewhere. I personally dont get the hostile tone of those comments but it is an opinion after all, people should take a long deep breath and move on.

And if David Cameron comments on it, it draws more attention to Hilary's very words and keeps the subject going on.

However, even I think Hilary's words a bit uncalled for, and I tend to think public figures fairer game than most. I'm still trying to figure out a purpose in her commentary. If she had a political opinion on Kate's work, her vacation schedule, etc, then I think fine, fire away. She's entitled to her opinion and to voice it, but still, what was the purpose in calling her a plastic mannequin or words to that effect?

 

[HRHHermione]

And if David Cameron comments on it, it draws more attention to Hilary's very words and keeps the subject going on.

However, even I think Hilary's words a bit uncalled for, and I tend to think public figures fairer game than most. I'm still trying to figure out a purpose in her commentary. If she had a political opinion on Kate's work, her vacation schedule, etc, then I think fine, fire away. She's entitled to her opinion and to voice it, but still, what was the purpose in calling her a plastic mannequin or words to that effect?

Have you read the piece in its entirety? It was a lecture on the way royal bodies are viewed by press and public placed in historical context alongside other royal figures and how they've been viewed.

 

[vkrish]

And if David Cameron comments on it, it draws more attention to Hilary's very words and keeps the subject going on.

However, even I think Hilary's words a bit uncalled for, and I tend to think public figures fairer game than most. I'm still trying to figure out a purpose in her commentary. If she had a political opinion on Kate's work, her vacation schedule, etc, then I think fine, fire away. She's entitled to her opinion and to voice it, but still, what was the purpose in calling her a plastic mannequin or words to that effect?

She is not calling her a plastic mannequin..She is telling we just see her as a plastic mannequin, just based on her clothes, or her pregnancy, or whatever, without any importance to her own personality. And she is telling we did the same to Diana and we shouldnot repeat the same for Kate..

 

[vkrish]

Hermione, nice explanation. It is a pity that we all (me too) need someone else to analyse every article for us and tell the real stuff. We are so impatient to understand it in full on our own, and simply lash out with opinions instantaneously, basing on some "key words".
What amuses me is almost every newspaper have potrayed the views, as if they look critical of Kate. While actually the views are critical of the media in the first place.
Once again a fantastic trechearous job by the media of deflecting criticism to someone else, or diverting it to a fight..

 

[Lumutqueen]

Designed by who?

She didn't say. She just said it was as if Catherine was designed. I assume she means to it the role of a royal wife.

She is not calling her a plastic mannequin..She is telling we just see her as a plastic mannequin, just based on her clothes, or her pregnancy, or whatever, without any importance to her own personality. And she is telling we did the same to Diana and we shouldnot repeat the same for Kate..

I listened to the authors own words this afternoon, out if her own mouth and there was no mention of media perception of Catherine or how 'they' view her. It was Hilary's opinion that Catherine is a mannequin.

 

[Mirabel]

Eh, this woman wants to promote her books, and this is easy publicity!

Personally, I loathe hearing childbirth referred to as breeding. Having children is a joy and a privilege, and I believe that is the way Kate and William view it, not as some reluctant chore.

 

[cepe]

Designed by who?

She said (I'm doing this from memory) "by a committee" - I interpreted this as Catherine is presented as an amalgam of media concepts rather than as the real person. And as you said, because she is private as an individual, they are able to creat her as they wish.

Really great posts HRHHermione. I cant decide whether this is deliberate obfuscation by the press or that they are too dim to understand what she was saying. They then just present the "interesting bits"

 

[Dman]

Lumutqueen, that's how I understood Hilary's thoughts.

I think it's a shame that she said things like that and haven't actually met The Duchess of Cambridge.

At least her name is being mentioned in the media now. I have never heard about her before. She said those things because she knew it would get picked up in the press and now shes getting the notoriety she wanted.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Eh, this woman wants to promote her books, and this is easy publicity!

This woman doesn't need to promote her books, her two booker prizes, tv series and millions of copies sold are promotion on it's own. This was a speech/lecture on media and royal women. Hilary just said what she wanted to.

As for the breeding issue, several people on this forum have stated on more than one occasion that Catherine is doing her one and only job of producing an heir. Hilary isn't the only one to see Catherine for that use.

 

[Dman]

Kate Williams: 'Hilary Mantel has a point':
BBC News - Kate Williams: 'Hilary Mantel has a point'

If that's the case, then I'm sorry that I took her lecture the wrong way.

I just feel bad that her words overshadowed the purpose of Catherine's official engagement.

 

[TLLK]

Funny, as for the most part, people were pretty outraged those topless photos happened. Remember, they were on *Private* property and considering how far away from the road they were, had every expectation of just that. Privacy.

IMO, the only ones who got damaged by that entire mess was the Media. They did something that crossed the line *Big Time* and, then when William and Kate took legal action and rightfully so I might add, is when the attacks started to take place in earnest.

I mean...How dare they do this to the Media, so in turn, we'll just take our revenge out on them by tearing them down in the Papers/Radio and TV Stations. All we need to do is take an innocent statement, put it out of context in an article or state Kate/William said this, when actually that's not what they said at all, but hey...Who cares about the actual truth anymore!?! Especially if it means we get a bit of our own back for the nerve of them wanting to have a bit of privacy when not on duty?

What's been done to Harry the last few weeks is a perfect example of that. If anyone had actually seen the British Armed Forces doc Prince on a Mission, they'd see that all of the "whining" and so on we were all "told Harry had done and in turn, had disgraced himself and the uniform", didn't really take place. What had actually happened is Harry said a few things about the Media that they didn't like and they in turn twisted certain clips to make it seem that Captain Wales actually did come across as a spoilt little Prince.

It's up over at YouTube for those interested in seeing what Harry *actually* said BTW. Anyway....

Just like all of the fuss over the Bikini pics. Who is it that's actually screaming Bloody Murder and Foul in Public? Not Will and Kate, but the Press. All that's been said by the Cambridges is that they were deeply disappointed it happened and that was it and that was all. It's the Press that's turned it into something far worse.

Sadly in this age of instant news and everyone having such hectic busy lives, no one really has the time these day to sit down and see if what's being told to us by the Press/Media is the actual truthful story and facts or not. So in turn, most People believe exactly what they're being told these day and leaving it at that.

Which scares me, as that's not the kind of World I'd like to live in.

Now, I'd love to think I'm going to be reading some great informative articles tomorrow/later today about the great work Action on Addiction's doing and what exactly the Centre HRH is visiting does, but I know there'll only be a couple of snippets on that if we're lucky. Reality wise, it'll be all about what she's wearing, then how we haven't seen her since late November/early December and the vacation.

Sad and frustrating all rolled up into one.

Still looking forward to seeing Kate out and about again. I just wish the Media would grow up and act like the supposed adults they are w/the coverage, but...

I completely agree with your comments regarding the media and their coverage of the Cambridges and Harry.