On 20 Feb 2013 at 9:30am Dan wrote:
That awful Mantell woman with the fat parrot face needs to think hard before being mean and unfair to a charming graceful woman like Kate. I guess the parrot is single?
How many frogs has she kissed?
Guess there havent been many princes in that ones life.........
Who gives a shiny sh*te about her boring old books concerning long dead scheming murderers?
On 20 Feb 2013 at 9:33am Freddy Davis wrote:
Exactly. Spot on. Leave Kate be. I know parrots that are better looking than the grand Hilary.
On 20 Feb 2013 at 9:34am Polly wrote:
Does the old bat have a man?
What a stuck up thing she is....
On 20 Feb 2013 at 9:36am Graham wrote:
I guess she has committed social suicide by attacking the darling of the inner circle.
Still it was unfair - Kate seems a pleasant lass and Wills is a decent young chap.
On 20 Feb 2013 at 10:48am S'Only Me wrote:
Have you actually read the article? She didn't attack Kate, she attacked the press for portraying Kate as a 2D figure.
On 20 Feb 2013 at 11:29am Old Cynic wrote:
S'Only Me is spot on Hilary Mantel has been completely stitched up by the press - the whole article was taken out of context.
Kate IS defined by what she wears, being pregnant and not much else - and whose fault is that - the media!
On 20 Feb 2013 at 12:37pm mildmanneredchap wrote:
Yes indeed -- how about reading the article in question before rushing to judgment? Don't be a dimwit like David Cameron!
Check it out here »
On 20 Feb 2013 at 1:41pm Old Cynic wrote:
Thans mildmanneredchap - a very interesting read!
On 20 Feb 2013 at 3:57pm Phil wrote:
She knew exactly what she was doing when she did the article. It was designed to cause a storm and for me it just confirms what on an old dried bat she is. The press very often portray Kate in a very flattering way, not plastic at all but very warm and thoughtful I think. The republicans will always leap aboard any royal criticism they can glean from an old idiot like Mantell.
On 20 Feb 2013 at 6:47pm kate fan wrote:
no i'm not reading any articals. i know what i hate andi hate anyone who criticises are wonderful royal famly it will all be her looney left arguments which are hard to argue against because thats what lefties do all the time they make arguments that hard to argue against and thats how they get their own way all the time there all cheats who think there clever. . newspapers arnt allowed to tell lies, and . that woman shoud be locked up in the tower of london for saying what she did.kate is beutiful and lovely and harmless and always wears nice clothes and has never been in touble.why do these people get prizes for writing books nobody ever reads.I never heard of her,and i don't know anybody who knows hereither.
On 20 Feb 2013 at 7:35pm Sussex Jim wrote:
When I first saw that Hilary Mantell woman on the TV news, I thought she was comparing the Duchess of Cambridge to herself, as another pregnant woman. Then I realised that she was not pregnant; just fat. And ugly, too.
I hope Kate and William and offspring have a long and happy life together.
It's interesting, though, that there will shortly be THREE monarchs in waiting for the throne...
On 20 Feb 2013 at 10:14pm Blip wrote:
It's worth mentioning that Hilary Mantel is not fat by nature. In her earlier life she became very ill and put on all that weight as a result of the medication she was given. I can't comment on what she said, because I haven't read a report on it, but I enjoy her books and think it is a shame those who criticise her resort to unkind physical comments on something that she cannot help instead of giving a reasoned argument that could be considered and respected. Sussex Jim, I thought better of you.
On 20 Feb 2013 at 10:51pm Sussex Jim wrote:
I apologise to Hilary Mantell on the comment about her size. However, she should not knock the royal family in public.
On 21 Feb 2013 at 9:31am wrote:
One assumes that Kate Fan is a taking of the mickey. Please let that be the case. One would hate to think such ignorance has any real access or motivation for public comment. But, that being said--most things written on this forum would support that sad truth. Thank you Blip for your sharing the facts, which I know to be true. The focus on Ms Mantel's appearance would be laughable in light of the context of the article--were it not so petty and appalling.
In many opinions (albeit those opinions informed by critical thinking, education and extensive reading, again, not the norm on this forum) Ms Mantel is one of the finest writers and scholars of this country and our age. That I happen to be of that opinion is beside the point.
The main point of this post is to criticise the pers
On 21 Feb 2013 at 9:38am wrote:
onal attacks on appearance and to encourage people to read, think and make some attempt at analysis before casting judgement.
On 21 Feb 2013 at 12:02pm Blip wrote:
Thanks, SJ. I, too, would not like any adverse comments about Kate, who I think is lovely, and who is still "learning" what is a very difficult job.
Let's not also forget that it was certain elements of the Press who appear to have hounded Princess Diana to her death.
I have still not had time to study exactly what Hilary Mantel is reported to have said, but I do know that the Press are said to have taken her remarks out of context in order to discredit Ms Mantel. Now, why would they do this? Is there some element of resentment that she has won the Booker prize twice, for the first two novels of a trilogy? Are they using Ms Mantel as a "tool" in a campaign to attack the Royal Family? I would like to know what others think.
On 21 Feb 2013 at 1:23pm Old Cynic wrote:
Blip - I think the media are just lazy and have lifted half a dozen lines out of a long and serious papers on what it mewans to be a royal in the eyes of the public - she discussed Marie Antionette as well as Anne Boleyn and her comment5s about Kate are illustrating that nothing has changed in the way royal women are perceived - either as clothes horses or baby machines. Shes not criticising Kate the persoon - but Princess Kate - the media darling. We all know that on step out of line - wearing the wrong dress, looking tired or less pretty - will be commented on a criticised by the media... try reading the paper and not the medias silly, lazy and distored reporting
On 21 Feb 2013 at 1:29pm Deelite wrote:
Yes, her comments are taken out of context. The papers have misrepresented what she said and entirely changed the meaning of her words. I hope she is thinking of suing them. Some of our media is a disgrace. It's shaming.
On 21 Feb 2013 at 4:55pm Nixon Scraypes wrote:
All good publicity for her books
On 21 Feb 2013 at 7:04pm Bill wrote:
Mantell-She is a fat ugly old bat though - that is a fact.
On 21 Feb 2013 at 9:36pm Old Cynic wrote:
Bill - people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones and try growing up - cretin
On 22 Feb 2013 at 2:13am Expat Two wrote:
Blip/OC, the reason they do it is to sell newspapers. Nothing sells newspapers like baying for the lynching of a common enemy. Even if that enemy has to be made up. Even if that made up enemy's life is left in tatters in their chase for sales.
Add her name to the list;
.... I can't think of any more, but you know they're there.
On 22 Feb 2013 at 8:43am Blip wrote:
The only thing that would stop that would be if no-one bought the papers involved in this kind of scurrilous activity. However, the general public seems to be so far into the "celebrity culture" (set 'em up to knock 'em down) that it is never going to happen. Bread and Circuses. Look at the spite and malice exhibited on this Forum.
On 22 Feb 2013 at 4:49pm brixtonbelle wrote:
kate fan - you should read the article and what Mantell said before commenting. She is not attacking Kate - she is attacking the role she has been ascribed by the media - first as a fashion icon and second as a baby machine. So far Kate has not been allowed to show anything of her real character and if by any chance she should go 'off message' as her late mother in law did - the newspapers, certainly the tabloids, will crucify her.
Do you really believe that "newspapers arnt allowed to tell lies" ?