Bit harsh from Hilary Mantel?

I've argued with views that differ from my own, orca, as have others. I agree that lily has raised an interesting point; that's why I commented on it – to further the discussion of that interesting point.

It's difficult to argue with the sharp bites of a killer whale, though. That I have to admit. Do you think you could be a tiny bit less personal in your comments? It's getting a bit tiresome to be targeted. Cheers.

Agreed Anno. The article was dull and hackneyed. She was misguided in choosing Kate as her example. This was not some young virgin bride chosen as the unfortunate and naive Diana was, purely as a brood mare. The question that Lily raises is an interesting one. Did she mean to create such a furore or did she misjudge?
I think you've (over) made your point about freedom of speech bags it seems to be your only a favourite theme. Perhaps you would do well to allow others the same privilege without resorting to petty point scoring and mocking the opinions of those who dare to differ?

Why would she want to be 'innocent' in the way you speak of anyway, lily? Criticism and incisive discussion, either direct or indirect, of parts of our culture is allowed in a (relatively) free and civilised society.

I think she was writing for her audience, Lily. As a small and unscientific sample of two LRB readers, OH and I read the article as typical of what we would expect. If she had written it for a tabloid paper it would have been a daft idea, but in the context it seems perfectly reasonable.
Surely context matters?

Which section of the population was the article intended for? Who reads the LRB? Are many simple Royalists numbered among them? Who adopts a joky, dismissive attitude to the Royals? Who, having accepted honours and invitations, then ridicules and pillories the Royals? I don't think we can assume that Mantel was an innocent in this or that she wasn't fully aware of her audience.

I can't help thinking that all the OTT Diana worship and hysteria didn't die with her. It has just lain dormant until the D of C came along and she is now being regarded as a close personal friend and angrily defended by people who have never met her. (And who also seem not to have read the offending speech.)

That's not meant to decry the other sane comments, but I expect it will be taken as doing so. <watches with interest while such hapoens>

Sanity at last! Thanks, anno.

The speech wasn't about Kate. It was a rather dry academic lecture about 'Royal Bodies' and she - misguidedly in my opinion used Kate as an example, speaking of her as if she had been chosen as a suitable royal bride. This was true of royal brides up to and including Diana but, if what I have read is true, Kate had originally intended to make Exeter her first choice of university but, like a number of other young women, she (or was it her mother?) got quite excited at the thought of Prince William at St Andrews. Maybe she chose him. Be that as it may, her description of Kate was crude and inaccurate. She may have been describing that ghastly portrait, but, as most of us agreed, that is not the living, breathing Kate we have seen on her public outings.

A wild rose!

Eglantine??

Agreed eglantine!

I feel sorry for the people who had to sit through that rambling rubbish.

The woman is bonkers. Early in the article she tears into Kate. She is really cruel. And then at the end of the article she tells us to back off and not be cruel.

And other things she says sounds rubbish. People shuffling away from the queen trying to avoid talking to her?! Then why do people get early to events where royalty is visiting, so they can be at the front and perhaps speak to them and get their hands shaken.

And did she really hide behind a Buck House sofa at a reception?. [weird]

Wurze of course it was. Some people just cannot or will not see that, so they try to patronise us by saying we don't understand. Poor dears.

Not the speech[crossly] the 'boldly artistic etc' comments!

Are we talking about the same speech, galen? I find it hard to believe that you can't understand all of this.

I've read the speech. I don't understand the arty bit! I'm pure science with a bit of black magic thrown in!

I'm sure you would understand if you read Mantel's speech, galen. The link is up thread somewhere.

I'm with the 'don't understand mob'

It was a thoroughly unkind speech about a lovely girl, who must have been hurt by it. Not the kindest thing to do to someone expecting her first baby, did Hilary Mantel really think it through? I suspect she did - and went ahead with it. Horrible.

It was a very unkind speech, which possibly hurt a very lovely girl very much. There was just no need for it. Why be so horrible?

How many people look at the front cover of the LRB grumpa? How many of the 57,000 who do read would take it out of context? Delighted to find another LRB reader though!

Totally exhausted having read all (well, most) threads re. Mantel's "attack" on Kate. Has Kate got a grandmother? If so, said Granny should join Gransnet immediately and defend her beloved grand-daughter. That's what I'd do anyway. And I think that's what is making so many of us howl with outrage. Kate could easily belong to one of us!