Alison Weir
Alison Weir
2013-02-21 16:49:55
Not popular with Ricardians, I know, but can we give her at least two rousing cheers for her spirited defence of Kate, Duchess of Cambridge against Hilary Mantel's cruel attack? In Daily Telegraph 20th February.
Re: Alison Weir
2013-02-21 17:11:50
--- In , "favefauve@..." <favefauve@...> wrote:
>
> Not popular with Ricardians, I know, but can we give her at least two rousing cheers for her spirited defence of Kate, Duchess of Cambridge against Hilary Mantel's cruel attack? In Daily Telegraph 20th February.
>
This is very off-topic, I know, but I wonder if the Hilary Mantel piece I read was completely different from the one others seem to have read? The one I read seemed to be an exploration of the ways royalty are and always have been reduced to their bodies in the public imagination - either as clothes-horses or as carriers of a bloodline. A rambling piece, certainly, but not cruel in any way.
There MUST be a way to get this back on topic... *insert something about the way Richard has been reduced to his bodily form over the centuries and how there must have been hurtful gossip about Anne's failure to carry more children*
>
> Not popular with Ricardians, I know, but can we give her at least two rousing cheers for her spirited defence of Kate, Duchess of Cambridge against Hilary Mantel's cruel attack? In Daily Telegraph 20th February.
>
This is very off-topic, I know, but I wonder if the Hilary Mantel piece I read was completely different from the one others seem to have read? The one I read seemed to be an exploration of the ways royalty are and always have been reduced to their bodies in the public imagination - either as clothes-horses or as carriers of a bloodline. A rambling piece, certainly, but not cruel in any way.
There MUST be a way to get this back on topic... *insert something about the way Richard has been reduced to his bodily form over the centuries and how there must have been hurtful gossip about Anne's failure to carry more children*
Re: Alison Weir
2013-02-21 19:49:43
That was Mantel's intention I believe, but to describe a living person as "plastic","characterless" and so on was cruel, I think.Her theme was royal women, arranged marriages, valued only as breeding stock. Not really applicable today, tho' certainly in Tudor times (almost back OT!)
--- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "favefauve@" <favefauve@> wrote:
> >
> > Not popular with Ricardians, I know, but can we give her at least two rousing cheers for her spirited defence of Kate, Duchess of Cambridge against Hilary Mantel's cruel attack? In Daily Telegraph 20th February.
> >
>
> This is very off-topic, I know, but I wonder if the Hilary Mantel piece I read was completely different from the one others seem to have read? The one I read seemed to be an exploration of the ways royalty are and always have been reduced to their bodies in the public imagination - either as clothes-horses or as carriers of a bloodline. A rambling piece, certainly, but not cruel in any way.
>
> There MUST be a way to get this back on topic... *insert something about the way Richard has been reduced to his bodily form over the centuries and how there must have been hurtful gossip about Anne's failure to carry more children*
>
--- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "favefauve@" <favefauve@> wrote:
> >
> > Not popular with Ricardians, I know, but can we give her at least two rousing cheers for her spirited defence of Kate, Duchess of Cambridge against Hilary Mantel's cruel attack? In Daily Telegraph 20th February.
> >
>
> This is very off-topic, I know, but I wonder if the Hilary Mantel piece I read was completely different from the one others seem to have read? The one I read seemed to be an exploration of the ways royalty are and always have been reduced to their bodies in the public imagination - either as clothes-horses or as carriers of a bloodline. A rambling piece, certainly, but not cruel in any way.
>
> There MUST be a way to get this back on topic... *insert something about the way Richard has been reduced to his bodily form over the centuries and how there must have been hurtful gossip about Anne's failure to carry more children*
>
Re: Alison Weir
2013-02-21 20:00:21
--- In , "favefauve@..." <favefauve@...> wrote:
>
> That was Mantel's intention I believe, but to describe a living person as "plastic","characterless" and so on was cruel, I think.Her theme was royal women, arranged marriages, valued only as breeding stock. Not really applicable today, tho' certainly in Tudor times (almost back OT!)
>
I don't know. I thought the 'plastic', 'characterless' etc. was referring to Kate's public persona - and I tend to agree with Mantel on that. That's no reflection on how she really is as a person; it just means she is, as a public persona, basically unknowable. A pleasantly smiling face on a beautifully clad slim body. For instance, the part: 'What does Kate read? It's a question' - I didn't read this as a criticism of her as a non-reader, but simply that the public knows absolutely nothing about her tastes, thoughts, opinions - her personality, in other words.
We must agree to disagree, I think - I didn't actually like that article/talk overmuch, it was a bit too meandering to my taste, but far crueller (and less interesting) things are regularly said about the Duchess of Cambridge in the media and I don't think this particular article was fuelled by cruelty.
>
> That was Mantel's intention I believe, but to describe a living person as "plastic","characterless" and so on was cruel, I think.Her theme was royal women, arranged marriages, valued only as breeding stock. Not really applicable today, tho' certainly in Tudor times (almost back OT!)
>
I don't know. I thought the 'plastic', 'characterless' etc. was referring to Kate's public persona - and I tend to agree with Mantel on that. That's no reflection on how she really is as a person; it just means she is, as a public persona, basically unknowable. A pleasantly smiling face on a beautifully clad slim body. For instance, the part: 'What does Kate read? It's a question' - I didn't read this as a criticism of her as a non-reader, but simply that the public knows absolutely nothing about her tastes, thoughts, opinions - her personality, in other words.
We must agree to disagree, I think - I didn't actually like that article/talk overmuch, it was a bit too meandering to my taste, but far crueller (and less interesting) things are regularly said about the Duchess of Cambridge in the media and I don't think this particular article was fuelled by cruelty.
Re: Alison Weir
2013-02-21 20:14:19
From: favefauve@...
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 7:49 PM
Subject: Re: Alison Weir
> That was Mantel's intention I believe, but to describe a living person as
> "plastic","characterless" and so on was cruel, I think.
Yes - she was forgetting that this was a real girl who might read the
article and be upset. She could just have said that Kate needs to develop
her own style instead of letting the PR machine dress her up like a doll,
which would make the same point without being cruel.
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 7:49 PM
Subject: Re: Alison Weir
> That was Mantel's intention I believe, but to describe a living person as
> "plastic","characterless" and so on was cruel, I think.
Yes - she was forgetting that this was a real girl who might read the
article and be upset. She could just have said that Kate needs to develop
her own style instead of letting the PR machine dress her up like a doll,
which would make the same point without being cruel.
Re: Alison Weir
2013-02-21 20:44:46
They haven't read it (or heard it I suppose I should say) merely judged on the bits that the press took out of context (not that I've read it either)
________________________________
From: pansydobersby <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2013, 17:11
Subject: Re: Alison Weir
This is very off-topic, I know, but I wonder if the Hilary Mantel piece I read was completely different from the one others seem to have read? The one I read seemed to be an exploration of the ways royalty are and always have been reduced to their bodies in the public imagination - either as clothes-horses or as carriers of a bloodline. A rambling piece, certainly, but not cruel in any way.
There MUST be a way to get this back on topic... *insert something about the way Richard has been reduced to his bodily form over the centuries and how there must have been hurtful gossip about Anne's failure to carry more children*
________________________________
From: pansydobersby <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2013, 17:11
Subject: Re: Alison Weir
This is very off-topic, I know, but I wonder if the Hilary Mantel piece I read was completely different from the one others seem to have read? The one I read seemed to be an exploration of the ways royalty are and always have been reduced to their bodies in the public imagination - either as clothes-horses or as carriers of a bloodline. A rambling piece, certainly, but not cruel in any way.
There MUST be a way to get this back on topic... *insert something about the way Richard has been reduced to his bodily form over the centuries and how there must have been hurtful gossip about Anne's failure to carry more children*
Re: Alison Weir
2013-02-21 21:14:07
--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: favefauve@...
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 7:49 PM
> Subject: Re: Alison Weir
>
>
> > That was Mantel's intention I believe, but to describe a living person as
> > "plastic","characterless" and so on was cruel, I think.
>
> Yes - she was forgetting that this was a real girl who might read the
> article and be upset. She could just have said that Kate needs to develop
> her own style instead of letting the PR machine dress her up like a doll,
> which would make the same point without being cruel.
>
But I don't think Mantel's point was to prescribe what Kate 'needs' to do, but to describe what *is* happening.
Just out of curiosity, here are the pertinent quotes, as I couldn't remember Mantel talking about Kate being 'plastic' (turns out she was referring to her 'perfect plastic smile'):
"Antoinette as a royal consort was a gliding, smiling disaster, much like Diana in another time and another country. But Kate Middleton, as she was, appeared to have been designed by a committee and built by craftsmen, with a perfect plastic smile and the spindles of her limbs hand-turned and gloss-varnished. When it was announced that Diana was to join the royal family, the Duke of Edinburgh is said to have given her his approval because she would `breed in some height'. Presumably Kate was designed to breed in some manners. She looks like a nicely brought up young lady, with `please' and `thank you' part of her vocabulary. But in her first official portrait by Paul Emsley, unveiled in January, her eyes are dead and she wears the strained smile of a woman who really wants to tell the painter to bugger off. One critic said perceptively that she appeared `weary of being looked at'."
"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, so different from Diana whose human awkwardness and emotional incontinence showed in her every gesture. Diana was capable of transforming herself from galumphing schoolgirl to ice queen, from wraith to Amazon. Kate seems capable of going from perfect bride to perfect mother, with no messy deviation. When her pregnancy became public she had been visiting her old school, and had picked up a hockey stick and run a few paces for the camera. BBC News devoted a discussion to whether a pregnant woman could safely put on a turn of speed while wearing high heels. It is sad to think that intelligent people could devote themselves to this topic with earnest furrowings of the brow, but that's what discourse about royals comes to: a compulsion to comment, a discourse empty of content, mouthed rather than spoken. And in the same way one is compelled to look at them: to ask what they are made of, and is their substance the same as ours."
On second thoughts, I do understand why those parts might be interpreted as cruel when taken out of context - but I still think there's more to it than that. In the first quote, Mantel is contrasting what Kate 'seems' to be like with a (possible) 'real' Kate behind the image who might actually be weary of being looked at. In the second, she's basically saying that Kate is very good at her job ('from perfect bride to perfect mother') - so good, in fact, that she's becoming a prisoner of her image.
Whatever the interpretation of her intentions, whether or not she meant to be cruel, Mantel is writing about Kate as a 'perfect princess' - beautiful, impeccably dressed, impeccably behaved, irreproachable in every way - and as an enigma whose true personality is completely obliterated by the image of perfection. I don't know about you, but I personally wouldn't take much offence at that description…
Anyway, Kate IS a walking womb and a plastic mannequin, for the public. All along people were only talking about what she was wearing (or not wearing, when topless) and when she'd be getting pregnant. Now she's pregnant, and people are talking about what she's wearing while pregnant. If anyone's being unfair on Kate, it's the public. But then again, the royal family (and presumably she herself) seems to be okay with that.
Though admittedly I wonder why the focus on Kate, when the cultivated public persona of her husband is similarly devoid of any personality.
(And the above are the controversial parts of Mantel's article. The rest of the article is mainly lessons to be learned from history, and towards the end, she's particularly sympathetic towards the royals - she even points out that 'Cheerful curiosity can easily become cruelty'...)
>
> From: favefauve@...
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 7:49 PM
> Subject: Re: Alison Weir
>
>
> > That was Mantel's intention I believe, but to describe a living person as
> > "plastic","characterless" and so on was cruel, I think.
>
> Yes - she was forgetting that this was a real girl who might read the
> article and be upset. She could just have said that Kate needs to develop
> her own style instead of letting the PR machine dress her up like a doll,
> which would make the same point without being cruel.
>
But I don't think Mantel's point was to prescribe what Kate 'needs' to do, but to describe what *is* happening.
Just out of curiosity, here are the pertinent quotes, as I couldn't remember Mantel talking about Kate being 'plastic' (turns out she was referring to her 'perfect plastic smile'):
"Antoinette as a royal consort was a gliding, smiling disaster, much like Diana in another time and another country. But Kate Middleton, as she was, appeared to have been designed by a committee and built by craftsmen, with a perfect plastic smile and the spindles of her limbs hand-turned and gloss-varnished. When it was announced that Diana was to join the royal family, the Duke of Edinburgh is said to have given her his approval because she would `breed in some height'. Presumably Kate was designed to breed in some manners. She looks like a nicely brought up young lady, with `please' and `thank you' part of her vocabulary. But in her first official portrait by Paul Emsley, unveiled in January, her eyes are dead and she wears the strained smile of a woman who really wants to tell the painter to bugger off. One critic said perceptively that she appeared `weary of being looked at'."
"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, so different from Diana whose human awkwardness and emotional incontinence showed in her every gesture. Diana was capable of transforming herself from galumphing schoolgirl to ice queen, from wraith to Amazon. Kate seems capable of going from perfect bride to perfect mother, with no messy deviation. When her pregnancy became public she had been visiting her old school, and had picked up a hockey stick and run a few paces for the camera. BBC News devoted a discussion to whether a pregnant woman could safely put on a turn of speed while wearing high heels. It is sad to think that intelligent people could devote themselves to this topic with earnest furrowings of the brow, but that's what discourse about royals comes to: a compulsion to comment, a discourse empty of content, mouthed rather than spoken. And in the same way one is compelled to look at them: to ask what they are made of, and is their substance the same as ours."
On second thoughts, I do understand why those parts might be interpreted as cruel when taken out of context - but I still think there's more to it than that. In the first quote, Mantel is contrasting what Kate 'seems' to be like with a (possible) 'real' Kate behind the image who might actually be weary of being looked at. In the second, she's basically saying that Kate is very good at her job ('from perfect bride to perfect mother') - so good, in fact, that she's becoming a prisoner of her image.
Whatever the interpretation of her intentions, whether or not she meant to be cruel, Mantel is writing about Kate as a 'perfect princess' - beautiful, impeccably dressed, impeccably behaved, irreproachable in every way - and as an enigma whose true personality is completely obliterated by the image of perfection. I don't know about you, but I personally wouldn't take much offence at that description…
Anyway, Kate IS a walking womb and a plastic mannequin, for the public. All along people were only talking about what she was wearing (or not wearing, when topless) and when she'd be getting pregnant. Now she's pregnant, and people are talking about what she's wearing while pregnant. If anyone's being unfair on Kate, it's the public. But then again, the royal family (and presumably she herself) seems to be okay with that.
Though admittedly I wonder why the focus on Kate, when the cultivated public persona of her husband is similarly devoid of any personality.
(And the above are the controversial parts of Mantel's article. The rest of the article is mainly lessons to be learned from history, and towards the end, she's particularly sympathetic towards the royals - she even points out that 'Cheerful curiosity can easily become cruelty'...)
Re: Alison Weir
2013-02-21 21:31:03
Well, unfortunately we humans seem to have an insatiable curiosity about the rich, famous and/or titled. I would imagine Kate is a little more steady on her pins than Diana, and there is no Camilla lurking in the shadows. For any of us who think it would be amazing to be that wealthy, gorgeous, impressive or whatever, I suspect all of them want to run around screaming, looking like a real person on a bad day, and with some space and privacy!
On Feb 21, 2013, at 3:14 PM, "pansydobersby" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>
> From: favefauve@...
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 7:49 PM
> Subject: Re: Alison Weir
>
>
> > That was Mantel's intention I believe, but to describe a living person as
> > "plastic","characterless" and so on was cruel, I think.
>
> Yes - she was forgetting that this was a real girl who might read the
> article and be upset. She could just have said that Kate needs to develop
> her own style instead of letting the PR machine dress her up like a doll,
> which would make the same point without being cruel.
>
But I don't think Mantel's point was to prescribe what Kate 'needs' to do, but to describe what *is* happening.
Just out of curiosity, here are the pertinent quotes, as I couldn't remember Mantel talking about Kate being 'plastic' (turns out she was referring to her 'perfect plastic smile'):
"Antoinette as a royal consort was a gliding, smiling disaster, much like Diana in another time and another country. But Kate Middleton, as she was, appeared to have been designed by a committee and built by craftsmen, with a perfect plastic smile and the spindles of her limbs hand-turned and gloss-varnished. When it was announced that Diana was to join the royal family, the Duke of Edinburgh is said to have given her his approval because she would `breed in some height'. Presumably Kate was designed to breed in some manners. She looks like a nicely brought up young lady, with `please' and `thank you' part of her vocabulary. But in her first official portrait by Paul Emsley, unveiled in January, her eyes are dead and she wears the strained smile of a woman who really wants to tell the painter to bugger off. One critic said perceptively that she appeared `weary of being looked at'."
"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, so different from Diana whose human awkwardness and emotional incontinence showed in her every gesture. Diana was capable of transforming herself from galumphing schoolgirl to ice queen, from wraith to Amazon. Kate seems capable of going from perfect bride to perfect mother, with no messy deviation. When her pregnancy became public she had been visiting her old school, and had picked up a hockey stick and run a few paces for the camera. BBC News devoted a discussion to whether a pregnant woman could safely put on a turn of speed while wearing high heels. It is sad to think that intelligent people could devote themselves to this topic with earnest furrowings of the brow, but that's what discourse about royals comes to: a compulsion to comment, a discourse empty of content, mouthed rather than spoken. And in the same way one is compelled to look at them: to ask what they are made of, and is their substance the same as ours."
On second thoughts, I do understand why those parts might be interpreted as cruel when taken out of context - but I still think there's more to it than that. In the first quote, Mantel is contrasting what Kate 'seems' to be like with a (possible) 'real' Kate behind the image who might actually be weary of being looked at. In the second, she's basically saying that Kate is very good at her job ('from perfect bride to perfect mother') - so good, in fact, that she's becoming a prisoner of her image.
Whatever the interpretation of her intentions, whether or not she meant to be cruel, Mantel is writing about Kate as a 'perfect princess' - beautiful, impeccably dressed, impeccably behaved, irreproachable in every way - and as an enigma whose true personality is completely obliterated by the image of perfection. I don't know about you, but I personally wouldn't take much offence at that descriptioný
Anyway, Kate IS a walking womb and a plastic mannequin, for the public. All along people were only talking about what she was wearing (or not wearing, when topless) and when she'd be getting pregnant. Now she's pregnant, and people are talking about what she's wearing while pregnant. If anyone's being unfair on Kate, it's the public. But then again, the royal family (and presumably she herself) seems to be okay with that.
Though admittedly I wonder why the focus on Kate, when the cultivated public persona of her husband is similarly devoid of any personality.
(And the above are the controversial parts of Mantel's article. The rest of the article is mainly lessons to be learned from history, and towards the end, she's particularly sympathetic towards the royals - she even points out that 'Cheerful curiosity can easily become cruelty'...)
On Feb 21, 2013, at 3:14 PM, "pansydobersby" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>
> From: favefauve@...
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 7:49 PM
> Subject: Re: Alison Weir
>
>
> > That was Mantel's intention I believe, but to describe a living person as
> > "plastic","characterless" and so on was cruel, I think.
>
> Yes - she was forgetting that this was a real girl who might read the
> article and be upset. She could just have said that Kate needs to develop
> her own style instead of letting the PR machine dress her up like a doll,
> which would make the same point without being cruel.
>
But I don't think Mantel's point was to prescribe what Kate 'needs' to do, but to describe what *is* happening.
Just out of curiosity, here are the pertinent quotes, as I couldn't remember Mantel talking about Kate being 'plastic' (turns out she was referring to her 'perfect plastic smile'):
"Antoinette as a royal consort was a gliding, smiling disaster, much like Diana in another time and another country. But Kate Middleton, as she was, appeared to have been designed by a committee and built by craftsmen, with a perfect plastic smile and the spindles of her limbs hand-turned and gloss-varnished. When it was announced that Diana was to join the royal family, the Duke of Edinburgh is said to have given her his approval because she would `breed in some height'. Presumably Kate was designed to breed in some manners. She looks like a nicely brought up young lady, with `please' and `thank you' part of her vocabulary. But in her first official portrait by Paul Emsley, unveiled in January, her eyes are dead and she wears the strained smile of a woman who really wants to tell the painter to bugger off. One critic said perceptively that she appeared `weary of being looked at'."
"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, so different from Diana whose human awkwardness and emotional incontinence showed in her every gesture. Diana was capable of transforming herself from galumphing schoolgirl to ice queen, from wraith to Amazon. Kate seems capable of going from perfect bride to perfect mother, with no messy deviation. When her pregnancy became public she had been visiting her old school, and had picked up a hockey stick and run a few paces for the camera. BBC News devoted a discussion to whether a pregnant woman could safely put on a turn of speed while wearing high heels. It is sad to think that intelligent people could devote themselves to this topic with earnest furrowings of the brow, but that's what discourse about royals comes to: a compulsion to comment, a discourse empty of content, mouthed rather than spoken. And in the same way one is compelled to look at them: to ask what they are made of, and is their substance the same as ours."
On second thoughts, I do understand why those parts might be interpreted as cruel when taken out of context - but I still think there's more to it than that. In the first quote, Mantel is contrasting what Kate 'seems' to be like with a (possible) 'real' Kate behind the image who might actually be weary of being looked at. In the second, she's basically saying that Kate is very good at her job ('from perfect bride to perfect mother') - so good, in fact, that she's becoming a prisoner of her image.
Whatever the interpretation of her intentions, whether or not she meant to be cruel, Mantel is writing about Kate as a 'perfect princess' - beautiful, impeccably dressed, impeccably behaved, irreproachable in every way - and as an enigma whose true personality is completely obliterated by the image of perfection. I don't know about you, but I personally wouldn't take much offence at that descriptioný
Anyway, Kate IS a walking womb and a plastic mannequin, for the public. All along people were only talking about what she was wearing (or not wearing, when topless) and when she'd be getting pregnant. Now she's pregnant, and people are talking about what she's wearing while pregnant. If anyone's being unfair on Kate, it's the public. But then again, the royal family (and presumably she herself) seems to be okay with that.
Though admittedly I wonder why the focus on Kate, when the cultivated public persona of her husband is similarly devoid of any personality.
(And the above are the controversial parts of Mantel's article. The rest of the article is mainly lessons to be learned from history, and towards the end, she's particularly sympathetic towards the royals - she even points out that 'Cheerful curiosity can easily become cruelty'...)
Re: Alison Weir
2013-02-21 21:49:20
From: pansydobersby
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 9:14 PM
Subject: Re: Alison Weir
> Just out of curiosity, here are the pertinent quotes, as I couldn't
> remember Mantel talking about Kate being 'plastic' (turns out she was
> referring to her 'perfect plastic smile'):
I did read it! I don't dispute her basic points but I think she's got
carried away by pleasure in her own writing, and not thought what effect
this will have on a pregnant hormonal young woman. Also, there may be an
element of pro ably-unconscious resentment or jealousy because Mantel,
famously, is barren, and very upset about it because she really, really
wanted to have children.
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 9:14 PM
Subject: Re: Alison Weir
> Just out of curiosity, here are the pertinent quotes, as I couldn't
> remember Mantel talking about Kate being 'plastic' (turns out she was
> referring to her 'perfect plastic smile'):
I did read it! I don't dispute her basic points but I think she's got
carried away by pleasure in her own writing, and not thought what effect
this will have on a pregnant hormonal young woman. Also, there may be an
element of pro ably-unconscious resentment or jealousy because Mantel,
famously, is barren, and very upset about it because she really, really
wanted to have children.
Re: Alison Weir
2013-02-21 22:04:52
I actually think it's a pretty good piece.
________________________________
From: pansydobersby <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2013, 21:14
Subject: Re: Alison Weir
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>
> From: favefauve@...
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 7:49 PM
> Subject: Re: Alison Weir
>
>
> > That was Mantel's intention I believe, but to describe a living person as
> > "plastic","characterless" and so on was cruel, I think.
>
> Yes - she was forgetting that this was a real girl who might read the
> article and be upset. She could just have said that Kate needs to develop
> her own style instead of letting the PR machine dress her up like a doll,
> which would make the same point without being cruel.
>
But I don't think Mantel's point was to prescribe what Kate 'needs' to do, but to describe what *is* happening.
Just out of curiosity, here are the pertinent quotes, as I couldn't remember Mantel talking about Kate being 'plastic' (turns out she was referring to her 'perfect plastic smile'):
"Antoinette as a royal consort was a gliding, smiling disaster, much like Diana in another time and another country. But Kate Middleton, as she was, appeared to have been designed by a committee and built by craftsmen, with a perfect plastic smile and the spindles of her limbs hand-turned and gloss-varnished. When it was announced that Diana was to join the royal family, the Duke of Edinburgh is said to have given her his approval because she would `breed in some height'. Presumably Kate was designed to breed in some manners. She looks like a nicely brought up young lady, with `please' and `thank you' part of her vocabulary. But in her first official portrait by Paul Emsley, unveiled in January, her eyes are dead and she wears the strained smile of a woman who really wants to tell the painter to bugger off. One critic said perceptively that she appeared `weary of being looked at'."
"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, so different from Diana whose human awkwardness and emotional incontinence showed in her every gesture. Diana was capable of transforming herself from galumphing schoolgirl to ice queen, from wraith to Amazon. Kate seems capable of going from perfect bride to perfect mother, with no messy deviation. When her pregnancy became public she had been visiting her old school, and had picked up a hockey stick and run a few paces for the camera. BBC News devoted a discussion to whether a pregnant woman could safely put on a turn of speed while wearing high heels. It is sad to think that intelligent people could devote themselves to this topic with earnest furrowings of the brow, but that's what discourse about
royals comes to: a compulsion to comment, a discourse empty of content, mouthed rather than spoken. And in the same way one is compelled to look at them: to ask what they are made of, and is their substance the same as ours."
On second thoughts, I do understand why those parts might be interpreted as cruel when taken out of context - but I still think there's more to it than that. In the first quote, Mantel is contrasting what Kate 'seems' to be like with a (possible) 'real' Kate behind the image who might actually be weary of being looked at. In the second, she's basically saying that Kate is very good at her job ('from perfect bride to perfect mother') - so good, in fact, that she's becoming a prisoner of her image.
Whatever the interpretation of her intentions, whether or not she meant to be cruel, Mantel is writing about Kate as a 'perfect princess' - beautiful, impeccably dressed, impeccably behaved, irreproachable in every way - and as an enigma whose true personality is completely obliterated by the image of perfection. I don't know about you, but I personally wouldn't take much offence at that description&
Anyway, Kate IS a walking womb and a plastic mannequin, for the public. All along people were only talking about what she was wearing (or not wearing, when topless) and when she'd be getting pregnant. Now she's pregnant, and people are talking about what she's wearing while pregnant. If anyone's being unfair on Kate, it's the public. But then again, the royal family (and presumably she herself) seems to be okay with that.
Though admittedly I wonder why the focus on Kate, when the cultivated public persona of her husband is similarly devoid of any personality.
(And the above are the controversial parts of Mantel's article. The rest of the article is mainly lessons to be learned from history, and towards the end, she's particularly sympathetic towards the royals - she even points out that 'Cheerful curiosity can easily become cruelty'...)
________________________________
From: pansydobersby <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2013, 21:14
Subject: Re: Alison Weir
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>
> From: favefauve@...
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 7:49 PM
> Subject: Re: Alison Weir
>
>
> > That was Mantel's intention I believe, but to describe a living person as
> > "plastic","characterless" and so on was cruel, I think.
>
> Yes - she was forgetting that this was a real girl who might read the
> article and be upset. She could just have said that Kate needs to develop
> her own style instead of letting the PR machine dress her up like a doll,
> which would make the same point without being cruel.
>
But I don't think Mantel's point was to prescribe what Kate 'needs' to do, but to describe what *is* happening.
Just out of curiosity, here are the pertinent quotes, as I couldn't remember Mantel talking about Kate being 'plastic' (turns out she was referring to her 'perfect plastic smile'):
"Antoinette as a royal consort was a gliding, smiling disaster, much like Diana in another time and another country. But Kate Middleton, as she was, appeared to have been designed by a committee and built by craftsmen, with a perfect plastic smile and the spindles of her limbs hand-turned and gloss-varnished. When it was announced that Diana was to join the royal family, the Duke of Edinburgh is said to have given her his approval because she would `breed in some height'. Presumably Kate was designed to breed in some manners. She looks like a nicely brought up young lady, with `please' and `thank you' part of her vocabulary. But in her first official portrait by Paul Emsley, unveiled in January, her eyes are dead and she wears the strained smile of a woman who really wants to tell the painter to bugger off. One critic said perceptively that she appeared `weary of being looked at'."
"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, so different from Diana whose human awkwardness and emotional incontinence showed in her every gesture. Diana was capable of transforming herself from galumphing schoolgirl to ice queen, from wraith to Amazon. Kate seems capable of going from perfect bride to perfect mother, with no messy deviation. When her pregnancy became public she had been visiting her old school, and had picked up a hockey stick and run a few paces for the camera. BBC News devoted a discussion to whether a pregnant woman could safely put on a turn of speed while wearing high heels. It is sad to think that intelligent people could devote themselves to this topic with earnest furrowings of the brow, but that's what discourse about
royals comes to: a compulsion to comment, a discourse empty of content, mouthed rather than spoken. And in the same way one is compelled to look at them: to ask what they are made of, and is their substance the same as ours."
On second thoughts, I do understand why those parts might be interpreted as cruel when taken out of context - but I still think there's more to it than that. In the first quote, Mantel is contrasting what Kate 'seems' to be like with a (possible) 'real' Kate behind the image who might actually be weary of being looked at. In the second, she's basically saying that Kate is very good at her job ('from perfect bride to perfect mother') - so good, in fact, that she's becoming a prisoner of her image.
Whatever the interpretation of her intentions, whether or not she meant to be cruel, Mantel is writing about Kate as a 'perfect princess' - beautiful, impeccably dressed, impeccably behaved, irreproachable in every way - and as an enigma whose true personality is completely obliterated by the image of perfection. I don't know about you, but I personally wouldn't take much offence at that description&
Anyway, Kate IS a walking womb and a plastic mannequin, for the public. All along people were only talking about what she was wearing (or not wearing, when topless) and when she'd be getting pregnant. Now she's pregnant, and people are talking about what she's wearing while pregnant. If anyone's being unfair on Kate, it's the public. But then again, the royal family (and presumably she herself) seems to be okay with that.
Though admittedly I wonder why the focus on Kate, when the cultivated public persona of her husband is similarly devoid of any personality.
(And the above are the controversial parts of Mantel's article. The rest of the article is mainly lessons to be learned from history, and towards the end, she's particularly sympathetic towards the royals - she even points out that 'Cheerful curiosity can easily become cruelty'...)
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.