Mantel has eventually come forth to defend her comments, but I don’t think she’s done a very good job of it. I actually feel insulted by her apparent belief that we’re all beneath her.
We all saw the initial reaction to her speech. The press were suitably incensed and there was an extraordinary public backlash. The unpleasant and personal comments about Mantel’s looks, shape and personality seemed to portray everyone who disagreed with her as nothing more than Neanderthals.
There followed a second wave. This time those who came storming to Mantel’s rescue by pointing out the obvious; namely that Mantel wasn’t getting at ‘our Kate’. She was actually supporting the royals by pointing out the ridiculous views and treatment of them by the media, and indeed by the general public. In the circumstances the press, spotting that they were under attack, were counterattacking in the only way they know how i.e. by deliberately misconstruing Mantel’s words. As for the public; if they agreed that ‘our Kate’ was being criticised by Mantel, then they either hadn’t read the whole article, or alternatively were not clever enough to understand Mantel’s subtle nuanced language. That view was helped along greatly by the less than subtle language of a substantial number of Mantel’s critics. They didn’t help their cause, but does that mean all critics of Mantel’s speech should be dismissed in equal measure?
We aren’t all reactive thugs, and it may come as a surprise to Mantel, but some of her critic’s did read the article in it’s entirety, in fact several times; understood it, and still feel uncomfortable by her choice of language. On the face of it, her defenders are right; it is an article defending the royal family against press and public intrusion into their lives. It points out very well the ridiculous pressure we put on our royal family, particularly the female members of it, to be very near perfect. So far so good. But her speech went much further than that.
Mantel has two Booker prizes, which to most people would suggest she is an excellent writer. She has chosen historical fiction for her latest jaunt into the world of make believe. Historical accuracy is not her strong point, but her prose is suitably pretentious to ensure she got her prizes. She uses language as a weapon of mass destruction when dealing with her historical characters. Is there a single likable person in ‘Bring Up the Bodies’? If there is I didn’t find them. Insulting dead people is fairly safe, particularly when they’ve been dead for nearly five-hundred years. You may get criticised by a few historians, but no one is likely to be sue. Criticising anyone who isn’t a pile of dust is far more challenging.
Did Mantel criticise royalty, particularly Kate, in her speech? Yes, of course she did. Is her speech really defending royalty? On the face of it, yes. But then look a little deeper. If that were true, then why the personal barbs. The Duchess of Cambridge is ‘painfully thin’ with a ‘plastic smile’. She is manufactured, with no likelihood of a character or personality emerging. Did the press say that about Kate? No, those are Mantel’s words. What does Kate read, asks Mantel? Patronising? Yes, because Kate, it is suggested, doesn’t understand she is being used by the media, presumably because all she reads are romance novels like Diana before her. Perhaps if she took up Booker prize winning historical fiction she would be respected a little more, at least by Mantel whose feelings are palpable throughout her speech, however hard she tried to dress it up.
It doesn’t stop with Kate. Just like Marie Antoinette, that soulless creature, Diana, Princess of Wales was a disaster.On the positive side Prince Charles did have a nice suit, and Diana did have the emotional stability of a trauma victim. Kate, on the other hand, seems to have the emotion stability of a wooden plank; perhaps because she has been manufactured out of sawdust. Rarely have I read a transcript of a speech which dripped more sarcasm or more contempt for the people it’s supposed to be defending.
Mantel can write, or so the Booker judges seem to think, and so she herself seems to think from her recent interview defending her comments. But why give a speech which, although on the face of it says one thing, underneath the surface says something quiet different. She has now claimed claimed, as her defenders have, that there was no personal criticism intended. If so she should have worded her speech more carefully. Did Mantel not intend the undercurrent to her remarks? If so then she certainly isn’t the writer she has been given credit for.
It’s difficult to believe Mantel didn’t intend every carefully crafted remark in her speech. She may not have anticipated the intensity of the public backlash, however unseemly that may have been, but her underlying meaning was laid bare. If the speech was genuinely in support of the beleaguered royals, then it failed miserably, and with friends like Mantel, who needs enemies. Perhaps a royal family isn’t for the mature person, and perhaps they would be better being replaced with panda’s. For a speech asking us lesser mortals to ‘back-off’ and show more respect, it did a great job of insinuating a revolution is long overdue.
Maybe Mantel isn’t bothered by the criticism. Probably not bearing in mind the publicity which has increased her book sales, and the fact she’s now come out of the woodwork to confirm her defenders were right and that her words were taken out of context by the vicious press and the silly public. Perhaps, therefore, she’s not as good a writer as she thinks she is. But then again, she’s managed to get her own views across under the guise of criticising the medias view of royalty. By the number of people who have rushed to her defence it’s worked. So perhaps she is a good writer after all, and in a cold and calculating way, rather clever too.

I must admit personally i am two minds regarding the speech, having been to one of Hilary’s talks (back in October at Hampton Court), i will sa one thing for her- she waffles a great deal . Literally at the end of the talk when it came to the questions part, i think we had a total of four or five questions as by the time she had finished answering time had run out!! I think she’s simply a talker when it comes down to it- one of those people who can never answer a question in a couple of minutes but discusses and analysis just about every single, tiny, little, detail. When i have read her articles (only a couple i admit) i find that i have to skip about two paragraphs, otherwise i could be reading forever- also wondering if it’s ever going to end .
One thing i will say though, is part of me does agree with her in regards to the press’s treatment of the Royals. It’s long been known that both Prince William and Prince Harry strongly blame the media and paparazzi for what happened to their mother- they have pretty much admitted it as well. Mantel blamed the media in her speech for what happened to Diana as well, obviously the media aren’t going to turn around and say “well yes she’s right we do have blood on our hands in regards to their mother we are sorry”, so naturally they turned on Mantel, so i do agree with her when she says that they set her up as a “hate figure”, i noticed that none of the papers (to my knowledge at least- please point out otherwise), quoted the last bit of her speech where she pleaded with the press to “back off” in regards to always speculating in regards to the Royals and commenting on their appearances, clothes, love life’s, private life’s etc etc… Again something which William, Harry and Kate value is their privacy (as do all the Royals), which was certainly made clear after the photos of Kate on a private property in the south of France surfaced last year. So in part i don’t see the speech as a criticism as such, but that’s just my humble personal view .

I do find it so hilarious and ironic though, that The Daily Mail in particular (one of the most hideous… If not the most hideous papers), came leaping to Kate’s defence straight away like a knight in shinning armor, when they have written some pretty nasty articles over the years about the Middleton family in particular, and weren’t they the ones who coined the phrase ‘Waity Katie’?- A definite case of pot, kettle, black there i think. Not to mention how when Kate dd her first engagement after the speech came to light, an article in that paper covering it had a big picture of Kate’s stomach- so in some ways maybe there s a bit of truth in regards to Hilary’s speech and the way she called out the press.

I do think that she should have chosen her words a lot more carefully though, giving such a long speech, will leave you open to interpretation and twist your words around sadly.