Avatar
Please consider registering
guest
sp_LogInOut Log Insp_Registration Register
Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search
Forum Scope


Match



Forum Options



Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters
sp_Feed Topic RSSsp_TopicIcon
Here we go....
February 21, 2013
12:35 am
Avatar
Bella44
New Zealand
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 933
Member Since:
January 9, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Are you accusing Mantel of not dumbing down her speech enough Olga? Laugh Laugh Laugh
I have to wonder though if it were a male novelist who voiced these thoughts would the media have pounced on him? The way this whole thing has been portrayed as some kind of girly cat fight I suspect not. I feel sorry for Mantel (yes, I am defending her, don’t hate me for it!) in that the media are obviously too stupid to know when they’re being criticized. This will all blow over soon and the media will go back to commenting on the Duchesses lady bits.
Womb watch 2013 must continue!

February 21, 2013
2:34 am
Avatar
Olga
Australia
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 766
Member Since:
October 28, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

If a male author had written an article like that he would have been hung,drawn, quartered and roasted for Sunday lunch amongst the literary community, by males and females alike. The reason so many female authors are defending Mantel is because she is female, and they assume she is copping flak for being a woman with an opinion.
Mantel and Kate Middleton really don’t need any defending. The voiceless, like Jane Seymour, Katherine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn do. I’ll continue to stick to my guns.

February 21, 2013
4:04 am
Avatar
Anyanka
La Belle Province
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2333
Member Since:
November 18, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Louise said

I have read the Mantel diatribe in it’s entirety and I can’t see how she has been quoted out of context. She made those comments, which were nasty and uncalled for. Once again, however, she gives her opinions just as she does in her books, and then hides behind the suggestion that she is referring to media exploitation. It’s an excuse.

THe media has explotied the royal family since the earliest days of Fleet Street. I have no sympathy for the pres..

She gives her opinion of the Boleyns and hides behind her fictional Cromwell in order to give voice those opinions.

That’s a novelist’s job..to give voice to other people …rightly or wrongly..You don’t have to agree with them and sometimes…just sometimes..looking at another’s viewpoint of the past can help with looking at the fuller picture.

She gives her opinion of the Duchess of Cambridge and hides behind how she says the press view Kate in order to voice her opinions. She doesn’t even have the integrity to be honest about it.

so..she gives her opinion and then hides it??? I’m missing your point here…

It's always bunnies.

February 21, 2013
4:14 am
Avatar
Anyanka
La Belle Province
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2333
Member Since:
November 18, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Bella44 said

I think Hilary Mantel was commenting on the Duchesses image in the media rather than her person and how, when it comes down to it, not much has changed since Anne’s day. Particularly when it comes to having children…
Once again the tabloids wilfully ignore the full story and print their own version to sell more copies. I find it odd though that media here in new Zealand have picked up on this story.
God, there really is something horribly ironic about of all of this.

From my youngest days..the press have pushed an image of the perfect Royal Family(tm). I remember as a 17yo (not)watching the marriage of Charles and Diana and thinking how that was an unsuitable relationship…Older man and very very naive younger woman…I could se it wasn’t going to end well…

And the British press was so overwhelmingly org*smic about about some-one whom they knew nothing about but started to laud to the skies about….

Shudders…

There was sooo very much expectations placed on Diana’s shoulders..not just the heir and the spare but almost every-one demanding the perfect fairy tale marriage. And neither Charles nor Diana were able by thier upbringing to fulfill the nation’s expectations which were fuelled by Fleet Stret.

It's always bunnies.

February 21, 2013
4:59 am
Avatar
Anyanka
La Belle Province
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2333
Member Since:
November 18, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Louise said

I don’t agree that Mantel’s obesity or appearance should be referred to when considering her comments regarding the Duchess of Cambridge.

I totally agree …but why are people fixating on ms Mantel’s weight….

oh..yes..fat women should hide..and not have any other purpose apart from comedic relief..cos otherwise they are jealous b!tches from he77…read too many comments about Ms Mantel recently..

That’s despite her own personal comments on Kate, her thinness and her plastic face. I think her comments should not have been given airspace or credence in the first place.

Why not? It was a lecture given in a public forum and picked up by the Daily Wail amongst organs of Fleet Street.The British press have always laughed about censorship in the past..

All those who defend Mantel point out the ‘fact’ that her attack on Kate was actually merely an indictment of the nasty press. I agree she has a valid point when it comes to our obsession with looks, and the press’s attitude to Kate, as with Diana before her.

And any other female celebs out there….nearly all the men get a “get outta jail” card for not being perfect 24/7/52.

Double standard much!

Those who defend Mantel say she was supporting Kate and that she was merely projecting the press’s view of Kate, not her own.

Many of us who’ve seen through the whole press objectification of famous women are nodding in agreement…

I suppose that’s similar to the adverse depiction of the Boleyns in BUTB. Of course she wasn’t giving her own views, merely Cromwell’s.

Since neither you nor ms Mantel actaully knows how Cromwell thought..I’m allowing Ms Mantel to tell the fictional story how she wants it to go.

But despite what will no doubt be her protestations of innocence, look at what she actually says,
‘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, and entirely defined by what she wore.’

Fleet Street did that to Diana, Princess of Wales… Actually…I’ve seen reports about Alexandra of Denmark when she was Princess of Wales commenting on her appaearence and not her personality or character..it’s not a recent innovation..

OK the press may have seen her as a shop window mannequin defined by what she wore, but Mantel goes further then merely projecting her opinions of the press with the, ‘no personality of her own’. She goes on to say in the same paragraph,
‘These days she is 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 this young woman’s life until now was nothing, her only point of purpose being to give birth.’

been there, done that…had everything I achieved become irrevaleant to the fact I was now packing the goods in my womb.. esp from my family..less so from D’Hoffryn’s since they already had a grand-son

Threadbare attributions? Is that not nasty? Once she’s got over being sick? Even worse. Is she merely saying that the press view Kate as a breeding machine, or has she hidden her own opinions behind the press, just as she hides her own opinions behind Cromwell in her books?

Yupper…the British Press have always been interasted in the fertily of the female membvers of ther Royal Family..I’ve seen that from 1973 onwards…

That comment is personal, and I believe that’s Mantel’s opinion. The reason I say that is because of what follows.
‘Kate Middleton, as she was, appeared to have been designed by committee and built by craftsmen, with a perfect plastic smile and the spindles of her limbs hand-turned and gloss-varnished.’ This sentence is typical of Mantel’s exquisite pretentiousness, but is it the press’s view of the single Kate? It’s Mantel’s comment; no one else’s.

Hyperbole by Ms Mantel..

‘Presumably Kate was designed to breed in some manners. She looks like a nicely brought up young lady, with ‘please’ and ‘thank you’ as part of her vocabulary.’

Slight as the Princess Royal’s infamous ” Naff” comment , me thinks…

‘What does Kate read? It’s a question’.

and ??? IT’s as irrevalent as does the Duchess listen to Justin Bieber or Alice Cooper?? She’d be condenmed for either or both….

‘Kate seems to have been selected for the 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.’
All of these comments are mind-numbingly patronising, and the last untrue.,/<blockquotde.

Sadly..we haven’t had time to see what the Duchess of Cambrige is capable of..so i really don’t see how that is untrue..

William selected Kate because he loved her. The royal family didn’t select her for him.,

ITA..I think a lot of the “willthey/won’tthey” was because the former Ms Middleton knew what would be expected of her from seeing what had happened to Lady Diana Spencer, Lady Sarah Fergusson and Sophie Rhys-Jones due to press pressure.

Painfully thin? That’s Mantel’s opinion of her. If not then why not simply say ‘suitably slim’. This is an insult which gets at Kate, not the press. So how can Mantel argue she’s doing Kate a favour, particularly taking into account the last barb, ‘without the risk of the emergence of a personality’?
I agree that our interest in royalty is largely shallow. If Mantel limited her comments to the shallowness of our own and the press’s view of royalty, particularly female royalty, then I would have sympathy with her views. But she goes far further than that. If her intentions were, as those who defend her comments suggest, then she failed miserably. I find it difficult to believe that a woman who is allegedly such a wonderful writer could get it so wrong. There are too many sly little digs at a variety of different people hidden amongst her carefully crafted prose for it to be unintended.

How thin, then, is suitably, thin??

I remember how Diana, Princess of Wales was hounded by the press for alleged bulimia and gym addiction. And How Sarah, Duchess of York was hounded for her packing on a few pounds…

It's always bunnies.

February 21, 2013
5:03 am
Avatar
Anyanka
La Belle Province
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2333
Member Since:
November 18, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

black_mamba said

Here is one link I found interesting:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new…..nsort.html

Alison Weir wrote this in defense of Kate Middleton. I’m sorry, but Mantel had no right to say the things she did, and I agree with Weir on this one.

Yes she does…There is very little censorship in the UK..

In fact the First Amendment of the US consistution only allows for government stopping people expressing thier thoughts.. not a private enitity stopping the expression..

It's always bunnies.

February 21, 2013
5:06 am
Avatar
Anyanka
La Belle Province
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2333
Member Since:
November 18, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Bella44 said

Are you accusing Mantel of not dumbing down her speech enough Olga? Laugh Laugh Laugh
I have to wonder though if it were a male novelist who voiced these thoughts would the media have pounced on him? The way this whole thing has been portrayed as some kind of girly cat fight I suspect not. I feel sorry for Mantel (yes, I am defending her, don’t hate me for it!) in that the media are obviously too stupid to know when they’re being criticized. This will all blow over soon and the media will go back to commenting on the Duchesses lady bits.
Womb watch 2013 must continue!

To be honest…many of the British papers I see on line have been commenting on when the sprog will be dropped since November 2011. Since a lot of them thought that the former Ms Middleton was enciente before the wedding..

It's always bunnies.

February 21, 2013
10:37 am
Avatar
Louise
Hampshire, England
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 611
Member Since:
December 5, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Hi Anyanka,

I have tried to answer your queries on my two posts as best I can,

1. I agree the media have exploited the royal family for years, as they do all celebrities. My comments are not in defence of the press. As I said, if Mantel restricted her comments to that then I would agree with them.

2. Obviously I have an issue with historical fiction and the morality of demonising historical characters for entertainment and financial gain. But that’s merely my opinion which I understand is not shared.

3. My comments regarding Mantel hiding her opinions behind others, I don’t think I can clarify any more than in my posts. Her opinions of Kate are couched in what the press allegedly think of her, although as someone else said above I’ve not heard the press question Kate’s lack of character or personality.

4. I don’t think Mantel’s comments should have been given the coverage they have been given, or the credence. She is a fiction writer, nothing more. By giving her publicity that I don’t think she deserves she has sold more books. Now that really is irony!

5. Yes, I think calling someone plastic, painfully thin, lacking a personality, designed by committee and not at risk of the emergence of a character are hurtful and personal comments. They were certainly not designed to protect Kate.

6. I find her question of what Kate reads patronising when it is clear from her comments leading up to that question that she assumes Kate to be a lightweight reader and therefore not intellectural enough to understand she is being used. Perhaps Kate does only reads trashy historical novels, but if so then that clearly gets Mantel’s goat!

There is the right of free speech, which Mantel has employed. Likewise the press and public have been demonstrating it in their comments about Mantel’s shape, looks and character. I think what’s been written is way over the top, and damages the opinions of those of us who have a genuine concern with Mantel’s comments

By the way, Olga, you can’t complain about no GB book till you have read TLITT.Kiss

February 21, 2013
11:16 am
Avatar
Bill1978
Australia
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 476
Member Since:
April 9, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

‘What does Kate read? It’s a question’.

Every time I see this quote I can’t help but think that someone told Hilary that Kate hasn’t read any of her books.

Having read this thread and read the actual ‘speech’ and lots of various news reports, my opinion is that there are some very personal attacks towards Kate hidden within the attack of the way the media treats Kate. The whole Kate section comes across as a pile of sour grapes. To the point that I think Mantel is pissed that the Royal Family killed her beloved boyfriend all those centuries ago.

If I was a cynical man I would say this whole speech was designed for free publicity and it worked apparenty.

February 21, 2013
2:04 pm
Avatar
black_mamba
Texas, USA
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 91
Member Since:
January 31, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Anyanka said

black_mamba said

Here is one link I found interesting:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new…..nsort.html

Alison Weir wrote this in defense of Kate Middleton. I’m sorry, but Mantel had no right to say the things she did, and I agree with Weir on this one.

Yes she does…There is very little censorship in the UK..

In fact the First Amendment of the US consistution only allows for government stopping people expressing thier thoughts.. not a private enitity stopping the expression..

Yes, she can voice her opinions, but couldn’t she have made her point about the media without attacking Kate? I mean, I get where she is coming from, but the little personal remarks about her appearance and such were not necessary.

At times I almost dream, I too have spent a life the sages' way,
And tread once more familiar paths. Perchance I perished in an arrogant self-reliance
Ages ago; and in that act, a prayer For one more chance went up so earnest, so
Instinct with better light let in by death, That life was blotted out—not so completely
But scattered wrecks enough of it remain Dim memories as now, when once more seems The goal in sight again. -- Robert Browning, Paracelsus

February 21, 2013
3:34 pm
Avatar
Claire
Admin
Forum Posts: 958
Member Since:
February 16, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Can you imagine the furore if David Starkey had said what Mantel said?!

I believe in freedom of speech but I also believe that people in the public eye, who are given a platform to speak, should be aware of the power of their words. As an award-winning novelist, Mantel is the ‘darling’ of the literary world at the moment, so anything she says is going to be conveyed to a wide audience and so I feel that her words were unwise. I don’t believe she meant to be malicious, but having read her speech over and over again it is insulting to Kate and I can’t see it any other way. A brief one line statement of apology saying something like “I didn’t mean it as it’s been taken….” would have rescued the situation, I believe.

Debunking the myths about Anne Boleyn

February 21, 2013
6:27 pm
Avatar
Sharon
Binghamton, NY
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2114
Member Since:
February 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I believe that Mantel has the right to voice her opinion. Certainly. But I have the right not to like what she says, and the right to voice my opinion about it. I have read that speech over and over again. She has a point about the media as Anyanka stated. However, she made direct personal attacks towards Kate that were unnecessary and mean spirited. They weren’t media thoughts, they were Mantel’s. I think they were offensive. That’s the way I took it. It’s as simple as that.

Aside from the things she said about Kate, there was another part of her speech that I found absolutely disgusting.
“Now “flunkeys” were moving among us with trays and on them were canapés, and these snacks were the queen’s revenge.” She continues, “They tried to give them back to the “flunkeys,” but the “flunkeys” smiled and sadly shook their heads, and moved away, so the guests had to carry on the evening holding them out, like children with sparklers on Guy Fawkes night.”

Where I come from the word flunkies means losers, and I couldn’t believe that she was calling working people losers. Those lines made me cringe, and made me think less of Ms Mantel. Since when is a waiter considered a flunky? I don’t know if anyone else noticed these lines. She is speaking about people she sees as insignificant. These are hard working people who have to put up with the likes of her at parties. I found the use of that word to be uncalled for and quite cruel. And it tells me she can be malicious, whether she means to be or not.
She can say whatever she likes, but I don’t have to like what she says, and I don’t!

February 21, 2013
6:58 pm
Avatar
Claire
Admin
Forum Posts: 958
Member Since:
February 16, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

The flunkey bit, and actually the whole bit about Buckingham Palace, had me cringing. Many people would just be grateful to be there, gristly meat or not. I looked up “flunkey” in the Oxford Dictionary as I wasn’t sure if it’s derogatory but it is:

“Definition of flunkey
noun (plural flunkeys or flunkies)
chiefly derogatory
a liveried manservant or footman.
a person who performs relatively menial tasks for someone else, especially obsequiously.”

So, yes, not very politically correct!

Obviously people have focused on the ‘Kate’ parts of the speech but you’re right in pointing out that there’s more to it than that.

Debunking the myths about Anne Boleyn

February 21, 2013
7:15 pm
Avatar
Sharon
Binghamton, NY
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2114
Member Since:
February 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

You are too nice Claire. No I wouldn’t call these remarks politically correct. I have asked around and everyone here takes the word flunkies as an insult. My dictionary says obsequious or insignificant. We don’t consider waiters to be insignificant and I was dismayed to read that. Yes, that whole Buckingham Palace thing left me scratching my head. I would love to be invited to the palace. I don’t think I’d be too concerned about the darn sticks.

February 21, 2013
9:52 pm
Avatar
black_mamba
Texas, USA
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 91
Member Since:
January 31, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Claire said

The flunkey bit, and actually the whole bit about Buckingham Palace, had me cringing. Many people would just be grateful to be there, gristly meat or not. I looked up “flunkey” in the Oxford Dictionary as I wasn’t sure if it’s derogatory but it is:

“Definition of flunkey
noun (plural flunkeys or flunkies)
chiefly derogatory
a liveried manservant or footman.
a person who performs relatively menial tasks for someone else, especially obsequiously.”

So, yes, not very politically correct!

Obviously people have focused on the ‘Kate’ parts of the speech but you’re right in pointing out that there’s more to it than that.

Thanks for pointing that out! I was scratching my head trying to figure out what the heck that word meant. I’m from the US and I’m not familiar with certain words or slang used in the UK.
I’m sorry, but I just don’t understand what was up with all the little jabs she kept taking at the monarchy. I mean did she really have to resort to that to get her point across?

At times I almost dream, I too have spent a life the sages' way,
And tread once more familiar paths. Perchance I perished in an arrogant self-reliance
Ages ago; and in that act, a prayer For one more chance went up so earnest, so
Instinct with better light let in by death, That life was blotted out—not so completely
But scattered wrecks enough of it remain Dim memories as now, when once more seems The goal in sight again. -- Robert Browning, Paracelsus

February 22, 2013
12:29 am
Avatar
Bella44
New Zealand
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 933
Member Since:
January 9, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Had to chuckle at Alison Weirs response:

‘As for poor Kate, whom tradition denies a voice to respond to criticism, is she really a “shop window mannequin, with no personality of her own”?’

Irony is obviously not Alison Weirs strong point. Particularly as that was precisely the point Hilary Mantel was making about royal women and how they’re portrayed.
Perhaps tradition should go take a running jump and allow “poor Kate” a voice??????

February 22, 2013
4:03 am
Avatar
Anyanka
La Belle Province
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2333
Member Since:
November 18, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Claire said

Can you imagine the furore if David Starkey had said what Mantel said?!

A h3ll of a lot less of the “ugly, infertile, fat , lesbian” and far more of the “noted writer and historian” and nay a hint of him being gay..

I believe in freedom of speech but I also believe that people in the public eye, who are given a platform to speak, should be aware of the power of their words. As an award-winning novelist, Mantel is the ‘darling’ of the literary world at the moment, so anything she says is going to be conveyed to a wide audience and so I feel that her words were unwise.

I must disagree …the UK popular press is and has always been noted for it’s shall we say, “spin-doctoring” of widely reported stories…And the US press, esp Fox and it’s ilk is even worse..

Ms Mantel is guilty of viewing a subject through her “lens” (if you like) and reporting what she sees and feels. Her opinion is as valid as your’s or mine.

And the inference taken from it by (general) you or me is defined by how we view the world and more importantly, esp the women here, how our experiences of the feminist and post-feminist world changes the outlook of our view-point.

I don’t believe she meant to be malicious, but having read her speech over and over again it is insulting to Kate and I can’t see it any other way. A brief one line statement of apology saying something like “I didn’t mean it as it’s been taken….” would have rescued the situation, I believe.

But how is Ms Mantel supposed to know how the press is/was/going to spin her words to make her look bad or the Duchess of Cambridge look good to their readers. The interpretation is pushed by the reporter and unless the reader is going to read the original and make up her/his own mind then any possible shamed apology is meaningless.

It's always bunnies.

February 22, 2013
9:05 am
Avatar
Claire
Admin
Forum Posts: 958
Member Since:
February 16, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Anyanka said
A h3ll of a lot less of the “ugly, infertile, fat , lesbian” and far more of the “noted writer and historian” and nay a hint of him being gay..

You’ve obviously missed the times when he’s been in the press after saying things about women, female historians etc.

Anyanka said
I must disagree …the UK popular press is and has always been noted for it’s shall we say, “spin-doctoring” of widely reported stories…And the US press, esp Fox and it’s ilk is even worse..

Ms Mantel is guilty of viewing a subject through her “lens” (if you like) and reporting what she sees and feels. Her opinion is as valid as your’s or mine.

And the inference taken from it by (general) you or me is defined by how we view the world and more importantly, esp the women here, how our experiences of the feminist and post-feminist world changes the outlook of our view-point.

I didn’t say that the press weren’t known for their “spin doctoring”. Yes they have used selective quoting and blown it up out of all proportion but she said those things. She is, of course, entitled to her opinion and entitled to air it, I didn’t dispute that, I said that people in the public eye need to be aware of the power of their words.

I have to disagree with you regarding the inference, it’s got nothing to do with my view of the world and everything to do with what Mantel said.

But how is Ms Mantel supposed to know how the press is/was/going to spin her words to make her look bad or the Duchess of Cambridge look good to their readers. The interpretation is pushed by the reporter and unless the reader is going to read the original and make up her/his own mind then any possible shamed apology is meaningless.

I’m pretty sure that if she’d shown her speech to her agent/PR person they would have warned her to change parts of it. The Duchess is ‘hot property’ and any mention of her in a public forum, by someone who is also ‘hot property’ at the moment, is going to get the press’ attention. If her wording had been different, it would have been a case of a report that was much lower key saying something like “Award-winning author explores the pressure on royal women…”

Debunking the myths about Anne Boleyn

February 22, 2013
10:11 am
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

black_mamba said

Claire said

The flunkey bit, and actually the whole bit about Buckingham Palace, had me cringing. Many people would just be grateful to be there, gristly meat or not. I looked up “flunkey” in the Oxford Dictionary as I wasn’t sure if it’s derogatory but it is:

“Definition of flunkey
noun (plural flunkeys or flunkies)
chiefly derogatory
a liveried manservant or footman.
a person who performs relatively menial tasks for someone else, especially obsequiously.”

So, yes, not very politically correct!

Obviously people have focused on the ‘Kate’ parts of the speech but you’re right in pointing out that there’s more to it than that.

Thanks for pointing that out! I was scratching my head trying to figure out what the heck that word meant. I’m from the US and I’m not familiar with certain words or slang used in the UK.
I’m sorry, but I just don’t understand what was up with all the little jabs she kept taking at the monarchy. I mean did she really have to resort to that to get her point across?

My Husband has a lot of trouble keeping up with my slang at times. Nearly every British town/villiage/city has their own little sayings. The British accent has a real mixture of dialects, which comes in handy when Dinosaur gets up my bugle because I can off into a tirade of North of Watford slang and he hasn’t got a clue what I’m on about. Then of course there is the cockney rhyming slang, it’s not used so much these days, but I’m guessing your poor head would pop like a balloon if ever you were thrown into a conversation amongst the older community in the East End of London. Thankfully my father was a true born cockney (Born within the sound of the bow bells) so I learnt a lot of it from him.

As for a good G.B biography. YES we need one and I feel that Louise is the perfect person for that job. She just needs a good boot up the bum to get her going and I think will would have a good, factual and trustworthy book to tell us about the real George Boleyn. There has been so many fictional portrayals of him and the only one I feel that is perhaps anywhere near the real George was in Anne of a thousand days. A steadfast loyal and very loving man.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

February 22, 2013
10:13 am
Avatar
Louise
Hampshire, England
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 611
Member Since:
December 5, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

The initial reaction of the press to Mantel’s speech, was that on the face of it, Mantel was criticising the Duchess. The defenders then came to her rescue by saying that in fact Mantel was merely pointing out the ridiculous way the media treat and view royalty, and therefore the way the public treat and view them by association.

That gave Mantel’s defenders the chance of being horrendously patronising by suggestiong that anyone who criticsed Mantel for her comments either hadn’t read the article or were too unintelligent to be able to understand the subtle nuances in Mantel’s language. In other words she is too clever for us lesser mortals, and only the very intelligent could see the truth behind her words.

Am I the only one who thinks it’s the other way around, and that actually, on the face of it, the speech is pointing out the ridiculous way the media treat and view royalty, and that it is the underlying and rather insiduous nature of the speech which points to a more unpleasant meaning? It’s the nasty little barbs which are hidden amid the self-righteous defense of the royals which make the speech a sham.

Forum Timezone: Europe/London
Most Users Ever Online: 214
Currently Online:
Guest(s) 1
Top Posters:
Anyanka: 2333
Boleyn: 2285
Sharon: 2114
Bella44: 933
DuchessofBrittany: 846
Mya Elise: 781
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 1
Members: 425962
Moderators: 0
Admins: 1
Forum Stats:
Groups: 1
Forums: 13
Topics: 1679
Posts: 22775
Newest Members:
selenasw60, amaliaqy60, RobertRam, FredTip, judithqp18, Brandontouts
Administrators: Claire: 958