Kate Middleton attacked by Hilary Mantel: ” A vessel For Breeding For The Royal Family”

Kate Middleton Attacked By Author: Says Roayl Has No Purpose

Kate Middleton Attacked By Author: Says Roayl Has No Purpose

Author Attacks Kate Middleton As Plastic Princess

Not everyone thinks that Kate Middleton is the perfect royal who walks on water. Author Hilary Mantel recently made some pointed observations about the celebrated and now-pregnant Dutchess of Cambridge which are not very flattering.

Mantel compares her to a jointed doll suitable for wearing rags and calls Middleton a plastic princess whose main purpose in life is to breed an heir to the British throne.

Mantel made her comments during a public lecture given at the British Museum in early February during an event sponsored by the London Review of Books.

The subject of Mantel’s talk, “Royal Bodies”, was the extreme adoration given to female members of the royal family and how the news media makes them a source of entertainment and not flesh and blood people. Her comments shocked many throughout Great Britain, including Prime Minister David Cameron, who characterized Mantel’s criticisms as being “misguided” and not a true reflection of the woman he considers to be “a fantastic ambassador” for the nation.

“What I’ve seen of Princess Kate at public events, at the Olympics and elsewhere is this is someone who’s bright, who’s engaging, who’s a fantastic ambassador for Britain,” the BBC reports Cameron as saying. “We should be proud of that, rather than make these rather misguided remarks.”

Daily Beast Royal writer Tom Sykes came tot he defence of mantel.

“It’s actually a tender and sympathetic piece of writing, filled with compassion for royal women trapped in their gilded cages,” writes Sykes of Mantel’s reflection on how monarchs are judged by appearance and fertility.

Below is a text excerpt of Mantel’s lecture, courtesy of the London Review of Books. To read more of Hilary Mantel’s lecture, visit the London Review of Books.

“Last summer at the festival in Hay-on-Wye, I was asked to name a famous person and choose a book to give them. I hate the leaden repetitiveness of these little quizzes: who would be the guests at your ideal dinner party, what book has changed your life, which fictional character do you most resemble? I had to come up with an answer, however, so I chose Kate, the Duchess of Cambridge, and I chose to give her a book published in 2006, by the cultural historian Caroline Weber; it’s called Queen of Fashion: What Marie Antoinette Wore to the Revolution. 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.

“Marie Antoinette was a woman eaten alive by her frocks. She was transfixed by appearances, stigmatised by her fashion choices. Politics were made personal in her. Her greed for self-gratification, her half-educated dabbling in public affairs, were adduced as a reason the French were bankrupt and miserable. It was ridiculous, of course. She was one individual with limited power and influence, who focused the rays of misogyny. She was a woman who couldn’t win. If she wore fine fabrics she was said to be extravagant. If she wore simple fabrics, she was accused of plotting to ruin the Lyon silk trade. But in truth she was all body and no soul: no soul, no sense, no sensitivity. She was so wedded to her appearance that when the royal family, in disguise, made its desperate escape from Paris, dashing for the border, she not only had several trunk loads of new clothes sent on in advance, but took her hairdresser along on the trip. Despite the weight of her mountainous hairdos, she didn’t feel her head wobbling on her shoulders. When she returned from that trip, to the prison Paris would become for her, it was said that her hair had turned grey overnight.

“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’. Another that the portrait might pass muster as the cover of a Catherine Cookson novel: an opinion I find thought-provoking, as Cookson’s simple tales of poor women extricating themselves from adverse circumstances were for twenty years, according to the Public Lending Right statistics, the nation’s favourite reading. Sue Townsend said of Diana that she was ‘a fatal non-reader’. She didn’t know the end of her own story. She enjoyed only the romances of Barbara Cartland. I’m far too snobbish to have read one, but I assume they are stories in which a wedding takes place and they all live happily ever after. Diana didn’t see the possible twists in the narrative. What does Kate read? It’s a question.

“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.

“I used to think that the interesting issue was whether we should have a monarchy or not. But now I think that question is rather like, should we have pandas or not? 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.”

On The Web:

Kate Middleton Attacked? Author Hilary Mantel Calls Princess ‘Plastic,’ ‘Designed To Breed’
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/19/kate-middleton-attacked-hilary-mantel-plastic_n_2716137.html?utm_hp_ref=books



Karen is a Toronto based writer, and has been writing full-time for eCanadaNow since May of 2011, covering many topics including politics and world issues. Prior to her work writing and editing for eCanadaNow, she worked as a freelance journalist. You can email Karen at [Karene at ecanadanow.com]

Comments

  1. Anonymus Reader says:

    I have to agree with above columbs auther. She is basically a woman ment to breed. no disrespect to the royal family, but they are very quickly becomming obsolite. Kate is just a distraction to try and add more gloss to the picture who’s gloss is very quickly loosing it’s shine. i seriosuly pity their unborn child…the life of constantly being watched and stocked 24 / 7 isn’t a life.

    1. S says:

      My bet is on both Kate Middleton and other members of the royal family at least being able to spell.

      Our bodies -both male and female- are meant to breed offspring in sexual reproduction (biology 101), some of us just do it outside of the spotlight. The Duchess being a “woman meant to breed” is not really a logical argument of why she is a plastic princess – women giving birth to babies is the natural state of things.

      Remove stick from a**, then comment on others’ lives.

  2. jojo says:

    I think this author’s thoughts are though-provoking and sadly true – i’ve said that of kate middleton from the start – she went from skanky party girl to the future royalty – and prince william knew sheloved the spotlight but a the same time was also husband-hunting, educated and attractive.. what more can a man ask for? it will be an interesting ride for sure…