Booker and Costa prizes not enough for publicity hound Mantel – hitting on Duchess of Cambridge

Author Hilary Mantel, the current icon of the middle class literati, winning the Booker Prize for the second time and winning the Costa Book of the Year – with her book sales rocketing in result, seems not to be content with hard earned fame and fortune.

She has taken it upon herself to seize widespread popular publicity as well, by launching a cheap, smart-alec attack on the Duchess of Cambridge, who is a young woman in the foothills both of her new role as a key member of the royal family and of her first pregnancy.

The occasion was Mantel’s delivering a London Review of Books lecture on ‘Royal Bodies’ at the British Museum.

The author chose to single out the former Kate Middleton for a barrage of highly personal, deeply unpleasant and, indeed, shallow judgments – which run the risk of doing the damage to this young woman’s sense of self that the mindless media commentators did to her husband’s mother, the late Princess Diana.

It is impossible to imagine already what it is like to be pregnant for the first time, with an unprecedented set of relationships to be negotiated with your own body – and to have to do so under public gaze and lens focus  constantlyon your middle.

Now, added to an Italian rag’s recent publication of beach photographs of the young Duchess on a private holiday with her husband – under a prurient headline focusing on her ‘bump’, Kate has a celebrated author come after her, for no decent reason, with the cruellest of gratuitous comments to which she can make no response.

As a public act of bullying, this takes some beating.

Mantel gave birth to poison with such viciously wounding descriptions of the Duchess as these:

  • ‘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’
  • ‘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’
  • ‘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’
  • ‘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’
  • ‘In the end she (Anne [Ed - this was comparison with Anne Boleyn]) was valued for her body parts, not her intellect or her soul; it was her womb that was central to her story… a royal lady is a royal vagina’
  • [Ed: of female royals] ‘they are persons but they are supra-personal, carriers of a blood line: at the most basic, they are breeding stock, collections of organs’

This is now being desperately spun as no attack at all but rather an intellectual argument. Pull the other one.

The intellectual paucity and incoherent headline grabbing of this tirade could not be more evident than in Mantel’s account of the monarchy.

She says: ‘Our current royal family doesn’t have the difficulties in breeding that pandas do but pandas and royal persons alike are expensive to conserve and ill-adapted to any modern environment. But aren’t they interesting? Aren’t they nice to look at?

‘Some people find them endearing; some pity them for their precarious situation; everybody stares at them, and however airy the enclosure they inhabit, it’s still a cage.’

This admits the obvious – that what appears to be privilege is in fact a permanent and inescapable imprisonment. In saying this, it has not occurred to the author of historical novels that, rather than launching a slash and burn attack on a young woman who cannot defend herself, she might have taken more trouble and looked at the institution and the media who between them lock that cage, demand specific performances from the inmate and then turn the headlights on the person behind the bars.

But then the institution of the monarchy, with the still influential royal establishment – and the media – would have been targets a tad too powerful for the savvy Mantel to tilt at.

There might even have been no more prizes had she taken the tougher and the necessary route. Heaven forbid.

So she went for the soft option and the one bound to hit as many headlines as possible.

In doing so, she told us who she is – a self-regarding publicity hound with a moderate talent to write the sort of historically located novels so beloved of the English middle class as the best way to avoid engaging with change.

Now she has thrown her considerable weight on the back of a young woman whose physical fragility she has criticised but which she apparently sees no need to protect in lumping even more upon it.

And that ‘perfect plastic smile’ – that extends to the eyes and whose warmth so many people whose eyes she directly meets respond to – is on duty this morning, toughing out the fusillade.

Where is Mantel? Nowhere to be seen or heard.

The relative courage of bully and victim could not be more evident.

Just don’t buy the books.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • LinkedIn
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Ma.gnolia
  • NewsVine
  • StumbleUpon
  • SphereIt
  • Reddit
  • Slashdot
  • Print

7 Responses to Booker and Costa prizes not enough for publicity hound Mantel – hitting on Duchess of Cambridge

  1. I had never heard of this novelist, she seems to have spent too long writing history novels and not realised that it is different when writing or speaking about living people.

    I notice that despite her dislike of the Royal family, she was prepared to accept a CBE.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  2. I read the London Review of Books piece by Mantel, and came to the opposite conclusion. I believe the piece to be pro-Kate, and to have a degree of empathy with her position and plight.

    It came as no surprise to me to see the Daily Mail adopt the ludicrous stance that it did. Before anyone joins the lynch-mob I’d urge you to read the original text.

    http://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n04/hilary-mantel/royal-bodies

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  3. Unsurprisingly for an author whose Booker Prize winning books were heavily based around the lives of wives of Henry VIII she spoke about the person most likely to be the next English Queen.

    It is one small paragraph in an rather substantial talk taken out of context and used to attack Hilary Mantel.

    As for her point about the royal family being akin to pandas it is very disillusioning to think that over 200 years after Thomas Paine’s “Rights of Man” we still have a monarchy to be written about.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • There are very much more relevant things to be said about the anachronism of a constitutional monarchy than the cheap sensationalist comparison of its breeding performance with those of pandas.
      That is not intelligent debate – but red-top attention seeking.
      This was an ill-judged but far from spontaneous or uncrafted assault on a young person whose personal judgement, self discipline and grounded family values have proved unusualy secure. It was gratuitous, unpleasant and oddly vicious.
      It may have been a modest enough proportion of an extended address but no writer as commercially successful as Mantel will have been unaware that it would be taken as the heart of the matter. This is not a careless writer who might give unintended hostages to fortune.
      The damage this cheapskate dross may well have done to an essentially vulnerable person who has done nothing to ask for it is unconscionable.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • Newsroom: Did you read the original transcript, rather than the ‘reporting’ of it, in particular in the Daily Mail? It WAS NOT AN ATTACK on the Duchess of Cambridge; rather an examination of how society views people in her position.

        I found it insightful and empathetic. As did many other commentators. The actual lecture was delivered two weeks ago, and it is only the Mail’s hatchet job yesterday that has unleashed this assault on Mantel a fortnight after it caused not a ripple.

        It is disappointing, but not surprising, that the this excuse for a paper would behave as it has done.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>


All the latest comments (including yours) straight to your mailbox, everyday! Click here to subscribe.