Hillary Mantel-The Princess Myth

[TLLK]

The princess myth: Hilary Mantel on Diana | Books | The Guardian

[FanDianaFancy]

   :fuming: Very nasty. Totally uncalled for. Simply not true.
As I have said, before, be it friend author or foe, be it  indifferent author, PD is the gift that keeps on giving. Dead 20 years, her story ended. Before she died, PD said it all.  >(

She was not mentally ill, crazy, a lunatic, etc. She was once a young girl with hopes and dreams who played by the rules and was immature at 19, 20.21 years old. She was thruster  into a public role on the world stage without much guidance. She was a new and young mother without much guidance. She had a husband who was jealous of  her public attention  and who had 2 mistresses, girlfriends jocking  each other for number one and the main one, most thirsty, most cunning one, Camilla , made sure she uosurped the wife and got rid of Kanga who became crippled so  that ended it for her anyway.

D had affairs. She sought love, attention, and sex from other men. And...what was she supposed to do? Live like a nun. Her husband, we know, did his job with her , at least two times and enough to complete his job, duty which was securing his heirs as he was the heir. Once H was born, the job was over.

Job was done and won and over.

PD did very well in her public role. It was admirable. Whatever in her private, she mastered and put herself out there in her duties as she, and other members of BRF, are well compensated  for.

She took now and bold and current and important causes. She educated herself about them and did them Times had changed and she was of the new era.  She was not :
Ribbon cutting and  pull the string to reveal a shiny plaque. Show up, smile, and wear a pretty dress.  No.Those times were over.

Sad, just as she was still so young, and coming into her own, she died.

She was a good mother to her sons , who by the way are not Camilla's children even though so many of the foe authors keep trying to spin it true, and D mothering skills and role cannot be disputed.

End of story. :ugh:

[Curryong]

^ I'm just putting it out there that Mantel is not only a very talented writer but is a convinced republican. She rarely writes anything generous about the BRF or individual members of it and is fascinated seemingly by the myths and public perceptions of Royal females and the differences between the public persona and image and the private person.

Hilary has lectured and written about Marie Antoinette and Elizabeth I in the past. I remember her essay on Kate shortly after the Cambridges were married was avidly seized on by those who didn't/don't like Kate, and rushed to comment, so people's take on this article about Diana will be skewed by their opinions of Diana I expect, though it is certainly not overly critical of her.

[royalanthropologist]

I sincerely hope someone is not going to come up with the usual response to such articles that it is really Prince Charles that has sent her to "trash"Diana. Like I said before, people have different opinions on Diana and will continue to write them. Diana opened herself up to the world and that particular can of worms will never be closed off again.

[Curryong]

As I've said, I don't think Mantel is particularly interested in Diana as an individual, or indeed in Kate Duchess of Cambridge (who incidentally hasn't 'opened herself up'.) It's the public response to these women as iconic media stars 'breeders' for the dynasty and as historical figures of the modern age that she is interested in, though she has written similarly on people like Marie Antoinette. As I posted before, I noticed that people who didn't like Kate Cambridge cherry-picked a previous essay on Kate as a public figure, gleefully picking out sentences that referred to her as a robotic but polished clothes horse and concentrating on those rather than analysing the whole essay.

Kate, the 'plastic princess': Hilary Mantel's damning take on duchess | UK news | The Guardian

Viewpoint: What Hilary Mantel Says About Royals, Fashion and Fertility | TIME.com

[royalanthropologist]

I did actually read the essay in its entirety. It has some interesting insights, particularly about the general public and their responses. The basis thesis is that Diana was a manufactured vessel for people's hopes, dreams and disappointments. Privately, she was a bored and frustrated woman who grew angrier as she was thwarted and rejected by some of her relatives. Charity work gave her validity, an occupation and purpose in life. That is a view that I personally find persuasive.

I know this is elitist but I suspect the essay is well beyond the intellectual capabilities of many DM readers. They printed it in the wrong place. The readers miss the point and focus on how the author is not a beautiful person and how she is attacking a dead person. They assume that she is jealous of the beautiful and popular princess, a level of analysis that is alien to what Mantel is presenting.   She is writing for an audience that cannot understand what she is saying. The Guardian is a better home for the article and I am sure the readers there totally get what she is saying.

Mantel's work is recognized as being rather good. She has two major prizes to her name for literally excellence. I actually find her insights on Anne Boleyn quite interesting. Anne was a far more important and influential royal figure in the actual politics of  England than she is given credit for. Here was a woman who truly went against the mold and actually changed history; helping to institutionalize an alternative Church. Anne was truly bold,  courageous and intelligent woman who paid the ultimate price for her place in history. Her daughter was an even more significant historical figure.

I agree that Catherine did not open herself up ,so to speak; but that is also reflected in the fact that writers are unable to pinpoint specific details of her private life or even her own quotations. They write about her but without the authority of someone that has video evidence of interviews and confessionals. Apart from perhaps W&H, the rest of the royal family has learnt the lesson never to really open up to the media again about their private lives. Far better to release statements through professionals. Catherine seems to be very controlled in her responses and that means that people will not really know anything personal or controversial about her in the royal household.

[LouisFerdinand]

Diana so very eloquently spoke: "The British people needed someone to give attention."   
Very true words! Diana was truly a lovely lady of compassion.                           
:consoling1: :consoling1: :consoling1: :cloud9: :cloud9: :cloud9: :consoling1: :consoling1: :cloud9: :cloud9: :cloud9:

[Duch_Luver_4ever]

My notes on the essay in bold:

Instead, we gossip about her as if she had just left the room.

Unlike those other royals she mentioned, shes the first to have the mass market of books/videos about her, and now webpages/youtube/social media keeps her "alive". Also her story is both a compelling narrative with something for most, and she had a visceral effect on people that stands the test of time.


We still debate how in 1981 a sweet-faced, puppy-eyed 20-year-old came to marry into the royal house. Was it a setup from the start? Did she know her fiance loved another woman? Was she complicit, or was she an innocent, garlanded for the slab and the knife?

Ah, its like shes looking over our shoulders here at RI and even we dont agree on the answer, but I think the answer leans more towards the latter with maybe some inklings and the confidence of youth that she could change her beloved.

and we learn that she was "fun" and "very caring" and "a breath of fresh air". They speak sincerely, but they have no news. Yet there is no bar on saying what you like about her, in defiance of the evidence.

I think what shes missing is the boys arent trying to tell us something we dont know, but theyre trying to remind people of things that frankly their family has preferred we forget. Also the second statement suggests that theres no evidence of her having those qualities, when we know that to be false.

They were trailed as revealing a princess who is "candid" and "uninhibited". Yet never has she appeared so self-conscious and recalcitrant. Squirming, twitching, avoiding the camera's eye, she describes herself hopefully as "a rebel", on the grounds that she liked to do the opposite of everyone else.

I would say it depends on what part of the tapes youre talking about. If you see the body language tapes i put in the videos thread, she has her knees up and has a guarded posture when talking, but she reveals some pretty candid and uninhibited stuff. Seems she cant win from this author thinking shes self conscious to the media criticizing her mention of things like her sex life with Charles, etc.

As for being a rebel, I could point to things done at school such as when they thought she was missing on a dare and the police were called, etc. to her jumping out a window to ditch her guards, I think the whole Morton book at least the Rf would classify that as "rebel" behavior. I think theres a difference between the fact that we all like to sort of "put our best foot forward" in terms of our desired image to the proposed take on her.

Throwing a tantrum when thwarted doesn't make you a free spirit. Rolling your eyes and shrugging doesn't prove you are brave. And because people say "trust me", it doesn't means they'll keep your secrets.

The free spirit thing comes from the panorama interview, albeit that whole thing was set up as a press/perception management exercise. I think theres a lot of truth to it, be it the way she chose to live and raise the boys, or do things which felt right to her, even when advised differently, they didnt always work out as planned, but you certainly couldnt say she didnt march to her own drum, although there were times I wish she didnt.

As for her being brave, id say the years 19-21, dealing with her bulimia, then carving a role after divorce, show great bravery when she was either expected or wished that she would break by the RF.

As for her being careless with her confidence, I think the author is forgetting that we only know so much due to her being dead. While she was alive, Morton, Settlen, et al kept their mouths shut. It was really only James Hewitt that was the noteable breaker of her confidence.

She no longer exists as herself, only as what we made of her. Her story is archaic and transpersonal. "It is as if," said the psychotherapist Warren Colman, "Diana broadcast on an archetypal frequency." As she correctly discerned, "The British people needed someone to give affection." A soft-eyed, fertile blond, she represented conjugal and maternal love, and what other source did we have?

Id say that holds true of any royal person, both in terms of access to information and crafting a desired narrative. With Diana we know more than other royals, as with her not being blood royal, theres less of a familial connection to worry about offending when digging up details. Take HM, while either alive or for decades after she passes, writers will tread lightly to both have access to her and/or Charles after shes gone. Unless someone is really dying to interview Charles Spencer or his remaining sisters, Diana is fair game now.

As for the idea of her being only what we made of her, the answer is both yes and no. True she did have a common appeal that was well timed in terms of people seeking someone to give affection. But I think it was that she also was able to on some level, communicate what she needed, and people responded to that. By being open/vulnerable/warm/human especially in such a low bar environment as compared to the windsors/early 80s UK, it boosted her by comparison. She had that ability as one said to be confident,shy and nervous all at the same time and people responded to that.

Sure there where physical elements there, but theres several women that have those, we dont all go around reacting to them like we did/do to Diana. That was something she was giving off that people resounded with, as for it being on an archetypal frequency, that could be said of a lot of people, as she moved through life she filled those roles, but those archetypes exist, kind of like sterotypes, because its something we encounter a lot and use it as a shorthand for our experience.

The Jungian analyst Marion Woodman posits that unwanted or superfluous children have difficulty in becoming embodied; they remain airy, available to fate, as if no one has signed them out of the soul store.

Its an interesting theory, of course it could also be that parents dont put the energy into those children to find a role or place in the world like their "wanted" ones vs some mystical susceptibility to the fates. Im sure in the housing projects one could find lots of children not signed out of the soul store.

Later, promoted to his earldom, he remarried without telling them. Diana is said to have expressed her views by pushing her stepmother downstairs.

While not an ideal behavior by Diana, the two events are not as directly connected as the author makes out. It was at Charles wedding that it happened, in response to their behavior towards Frances. If youre going to slag her, do it over the right things. This strikes me as a hit piece geared to the masses not up on events.

Nor was she especially good, in the sense of having a dependable inclination to virtue; she was quixotically loving, not steadily charitable: mutable, not dependable: given to infatuation, prey to impulse.

Obviously she hasnt read up on her activities as far back as her schooldays as far as being charitable,dependable and virtuous. Ill agree with the quixotically loving, infatuation and impulse though.

He has been blamed ever since for destroying the simple faith of a simple maid. But off-camera, Diana was preparing. Her choice of hymn makes the marriage a patriotic duty, like signing up for a war:

The love that asks no question, the
         love that stands the test,
That lays upon the altar the dearest
         and the best;
The love that never falters, the love
         that pays the price,
The love that makes undaunted the
         final sacrifice.

Careful there, she just kinda blew her argument about quixotically loving and infatuation here, claiming she was so cold and calculating here which is it? Ill cut her a bit of a break in that we all know it was a little of both. While she did say it was the worst day in her life, she also said she was in love with her husband and thought she was the luckiest girl in the world and couldnt take her eyes off him.

Id say if shes trying to claim her looking dazed with happiness meant she had no doubts about the wedding, then things like taking off for Althorp after the pre wedding dance wouldnt have happened, along with other pre wedding concerns.

Prince Charles's attitude of anxious perplexity seems to have concealed an obtuseness about what the marriage meant to his bride.

It was Diana's complaint that no one helped her or saw her need. Fermoy had expressed doubts before the marriage. "Darling, you must understand that their sense of humour and their lifestyle are different ..."

For sure that was a big part of the future problems Diana would unleash on the RF, and justly so. This one is kinda tricky, and I will say in fairness, that usually when someone says "Never" or "always" its usually an exaggeration. I think it was a case of Diana got the temperature right of a situation, but she would try and load the case on her side with the use of words like that. While Ruth did tell her this, think back to when you were 19, how eager were you to listen to cryptic advice like that.

What would have happened to Diana if she had made the sort of marriage her friends made? Like many women in mid-life, she would have lived in a mist of discontent, struggling to define something owing, something that had eluded her. no one would have suspected her of being a beauty.

Id say by and large the description of how that married life would have gone is accurate, and for her longevity and happiness I wish it had happened, although it would have left the world much poorer. As for the not a beauty remark, color me biased but she couldnt have hidden that beauty if she tried.

Even in childhood photos Diana seems to pose, as if watching her own show. Her gaze flits sideways, as if to check everyone is looking at her.

Considering her father used the camera a lot and was the main way she got his attention, she early on equated the camera with love. Had the author kown that, she might have gotten a different conclusion. Although Ill freely admit given her family situation, im sure she craved attention and validation, so would be keenly searching for it.

Diana claimed that she and the prince met only 13 times before their wedding. Did she keep a note? She lacked self-awareness, but had strong instincts. It must have been child's play – because she was anxious to please, or because she was crafty – to seem to share his visions and concerns. An earnest look, a shy silence, job done.

Given that most of their meetings were on weekends and at other ppls houses, it would have been a lot easier to remember the number than say average joe going to the movies or for a coffee date. Also it was someone she wanted an awful lot, so im sure the experiences were easy to remember for her. As for the other stuff, sounds lifted right out of junors assessments of her trying to lure him in with dishonesty. Id like someone to show me someone completely honest when courting someone, otherwise there wouldnt be so many remarks by people about how their mates "changes", no its just the masks come down once were comfortable with someone, but there was also im sure an element of both sides seeing what they wanted to for instance at the de passes BBQ.

Diana was no doubt really shy, and certainly unused and unformed: a hollow vessel, able to carry not just heirs but the projections of others. After marriage she had power that she had not sought or imagined. She had expected adulation, but of a private kind: to be adored by her prince, respected and revered by her subjects. She could not have imagined how insatiable the public would be, once demand for her had been ramped up by the media and her own tactics.

Again, I think the author has it backwards, I think the adoration was more having to do with what she was projecting to us, vs what we were projecting on her. It was the fact that she was a warm caring person next to family of closed off people, at least as far as to the public

She had a sense of her own fitness to be princess, and unfitness for any other role. But she had no sense of the true history in which she was now embedded, or the strength of the forces she would constellate. At first, she said, she was afraid of the crowds who gathered to adore her. Then she began to feed on them.

Certainly true, but without looking at why it became necessary for her to feed on those crowds, it dilutes the argument, it might fly for the uninitiated about the WoW but not us.

Diana was allowed to interest herself in little else. Her dealings with the press and photographers were not innocent. The images had to be carefully curated – her good side, so to speak.

Again, shows a lack of knowledge of Diana's early interests, as far as charities. As far as the press, I think she is mistaking her good side, with the fact she rarely takes a bad picture. As for the innocence and or guilt in dealing with them, at first it was more innocent and then it got away from her, and the author is leaving out the last years of her life when she used the press to do a lot of good.

Unsure of her boundaries, the princess starved herself, as if her healthy frame could pare away to the elfin proportions of the models and dancers who fascinated her. She threw up her food, hacked at herself with a blade.

This one is probably the most upsetting, had she bothered to research, shed know the reasons for these behaviors, and it was not to become a model.

In Diana: In Her Own Words she sneers at her young self – her tone contemptuous, punitive. She cannot forgive that girl, naive heroine of a gothic novel – whose fate is to be locked in a keep by a man of dubious intentions, and to be practised upon by older women who have secrets she needs to know.

I think the author reads the worst into what all of us think of younger versions of ourselves to make her sound as bad as possible.

had she become queen, she would surely have gone about raising the dead. Legend insists she showed the world that it was safe to shake hands with a person with Aids. Even in the unenlightened days of 1987, only the bigoted and ignorant thought casual contact would infect them, but any gesture from Diana was worth years of public education and millions in funding.

barbs like this only blunt her efforts to convince me, as for the AIDS shake, I disagree, look at films like Philadelphia, 5 years after her handshake. Maybe we were all just "ignorant and bigoted" then, but people wernt going out of their way to touch AIDS patients then. Also she again forgetting the fact that Diana is doing these things against the backdrop of the RF. Had Diana been say a gay artist or celebrity, it wouldnt have meant so much, but when she does something, as a member of the RF, people in their mind imagine, say HM or the QM or PA doing those things, and if the image doesnt wash in their minds, Diana was seen as groundbreaking, as she was in a family so behind the times, and resistant to change. Context matters. 


If you guys want me to continue i will but this must be a monstrously long one, you get the idea. I think theres some valuable info in there, but with the lack of research and info about Diana, it comes off sounding like some sour late middle aged/ early old age woman b@#$hing cause she didnt get her prince charming or something.

Im sure I have my biases about the subject as well, which Ive tried to take into account. Let me know what your take on her essay was.

[Curryong]

I think it might be helpful if we knew where Hilary Mantel is coming from with some of her views on the royal family and on Diana as a woman and public figure.

She was born in a mill village near Manchester in 1952 (the very beginning of the Queen's reign.) When she was eleven her parents, both of Irish descent, separated after an unhappy marriage (Hilary is the eldest of three.) She never saw her father again. Although her parents never divorced Hilary took the name of her defacto stepfather, Jack Mantel.

Hilary's mother was Roman Catholic and Mantel has been acerbic about the deep mark the religious influence left on her life, making her feel guilty when she was growing up, as if nothing was ever good enough, that 'you grow up believing that you are wrong or bad'. She lost her religious faith at twelve, (interestingly soon after her father left home. (Several have noticed anti-RC themes in 'Wolf Hall'.)

Mantel became a Bachelor of Jurisprudence at Sheffield University and later worked as a social worker in a geriatric hospital (interest in the elderly.) She also worked in sales. As a Uni student she became a socialist.

In 1972 at the age of twenty Hilary married Gerald McEwan, a geologist. In 1974 she produced her first novel about the French Revolution (like all her novels meticulously researched.) In 1977 she accompanied her husband to Botswana for his work. They lived there for five years. Later they spent four years in Jeddah in Saudi Arabia, a society in which she felt alien and trapped. Hilary later wrote about this time and said that leaving Jeddah was 'the happiest day of my life'. Living there has undoubtedly informed some of her views on how women are viewed and treated in a patriarchal societies in the past and around the world.

As Hilary became more successful as a novelist her husband gave up geology to manage her business affairs. However they divorced, then reconciled and remarried two years later. (Something of the happy ending Diana always desired.)

In 'An Experiment in Love' (1996) Mantel explores some of the feminism which is very important to her, suggesting that women's aims and ambitions are often thwarted. (She doesn't explore male frustrations in that area though!)

When Hilary was in her twenties she suffered from a painful and debilitating illness. She was initially wrongly diagnosed as suffering from a psychiatric illness, was hospitalised and treated with anti-psychotic drugs which caused psychotic symptoms. She then avoided doctors.

However in Botswana, desperate and in agony she consulted medical textbooks and diagnosed herself as suffering from severe endometriosis. This was confirmed by doctors in London. However, treatment for this left her sterile and continuing treatment by steroids caused weight gain and a change in physical appearance. Mantel was Patron of the Endemetriosis SHE Trust for several years.

She received criticism for describing Kate as, in passing, 'forced to 'present herself publicly as a personality-free shop window mannequin whose sole purpose is to bear children.' However, I remember that lecture about Royal women quite well and in it she spent some time actually sympathising with modern royals being treated rather like zoo animals because of constant public curiosity about their lives. She said that she felt a curious sense of sympathy when she saw the shy Queen approaching groups of people when she was at a reception at BP and she herself felt like crouching down behind the sofas.

Hilary Mantels novels are meticulously researched but because she is a novelist she is able to use her imagination much more than any reputable historian could do. A case in point is Margaret Thatcher, whom Mantel hates with a passion. In interviews she's spoken about fantasising about Thatcher being assassinated in the 1980s and even wrote a short story about it.

Mantel's lectures and essays are interesting because she does allow that imagination to flow, but she lacks the comparative discipline, the 'facts first and then let's interpret them' work of the serious historian. There's no doubt that she's an extraordinarily accomplished writer, though, a twice Booker Prize winner as well as practically every other literary prize going as well as huge critical acclaim. She's a CBE (Commander of the British Empire) as well as a Dame.

I think that it's quite interesting too that, superficially at least, Hilary Mantel has several things in common with Diana, in spite of them leading very different lives. A parent leaving, a feeling of never being 'good enough', an early marriage which ran into difficulties, but which in Hilary's case righted itself, a perception by the public about her womanly appearance which in both women's cases was affected and afflicted by illness, an avoidance of doctors, who had wrongly diagnosed a serious health condition, and criticism by others of statements given in public.

[tiaras]

Her life sounds very interesting. She seems like someone who you'd want to sit and have a long conversation with.

[sandy]

Mantel is no Penny Junor.  Junor has the inside track with C and C IMO. Mantel does not.

[Duch_Luver_4ever]

kudos on the info on her @Curryong  very insightful, I just had an issue with her lack of research, I think she could have still made the meat of her argument, but after her either connecting unrelated events to try and make her case, or other misunderstanding of events, she sort of lost me as she was appealing to ppl that didnt know the story.

But hey, she was a lot kinder than this person...

Germaine Greer SLAMS Princess Diana as 'worst f**k in the country' in live TV interview | TV & Radio | Showbiz & TV | Express.co.uk

[Curryong]

Oh, Germaine is a grump. She's Aussie, you know, though she's lived in Britain for decades. No-one takes her seriously. She went on a panel show here in Oz and complained about then PM Julia Gillard's fat a**e in short jackets! Greer was even on a show called 'Grumpy Old Women'.

[tiaras]

I prefer Camille Paglia. Greer is boooring.

[royalanthropologist]

There is one area in which I am totally in agreement with Mantel. Diana was a vessel for people to carry their hopes, fears and disappointments. They projected their own lives and perspectives onto her. They still do the same today with her children and grand children.

I was read a ranting post by a woman who was furious that William seemed to be laughing with Camilla about something. "Where is the loyalty?" she thundered.  The truth of the matter is that this woman was not really thinking about William, his personality or his intentions.

What she wanted was for William to behave the way she wanted him to behave...to project her own bitterness with the whole situation. She never considered whether William really wanted to be in a situation where he was sniping and scowling at his father's new wife and dealing with the resultant family tensions. All that mattered to this poster was that William should help to execute her anticipated revenge on Camilla.

With Diana, the feminists and republicans felt that they had an instrument with which to beat the hated patriarchy of monarchy. She was an insider who was happy to reveal all the juicy Windsor secrets. The Windsors could not easily get rid of her because she was married and had children with them. That is why some  feminists and republicans were so annoyed by the divorce. Diana was out and could no longer tell and harm. Her death made things final.

Many feminists and republicans have expressed the wish that Diana should have gone much further. They did not consider that Diana might not really be out to hurt the monarchy but was trying to cajole them into coming to her side. To them, she should have destroyed the entire thing.

Others are frustrated that C&C have seemingly not been punished for failing to stick to the script. One said it was so unfair seeing Charles happy and contended. She would have preferred if he was miserable and alone. Then there is the contingent that is desperately hoping that C&C are about to divorce. They know it is not true and unlikely to happen but they desperately hope so and look for signs to support their hopes.

I once read  from one who actually wrote that she wished Charles and Camilla an early death in order that William succeeds. Such a person is not really interested in the feeling of William or even the Queen. She does not conceive or want to consider the impact on those parties if Charles was to meet an early painful death. All she wants is for them to be able to express her bitterness on her behalf.

Mantel got it absolutely spot on. Diana's story provided many people with an outlet for their own hopes and fears. 

[sandy]

William would not snipe and scowl at anybody. In any case, he spends a lot of his time with the Middletons.

Diana was dispensable once she had the children IMO.

Diana did not want to "destroy" the monarchy. With her son being a future King.

How happy and Contented CHarles is is subject to speculation. He still seems to be bitter over many things, as the two books out this year have indicated. His childhood issues seem to be a problem to him for one thing. A contented man would not keep looking back at the past and cooperating with Junor.

Mantel seems to be bitter herself. She should be so happy she is a successful writer instead she vents on both Diana and Kate.

[royalanthropologist]

Of course William would not snipe or scowl at Camilla. He is far too well brought up and far to sensible to engage in such silly displays. Spending time with the Middleton family is to be expected. They are his in-laws and he is close to them. I don't see that as a problem.

Diana was not dispensable until Panorama. Before that, nobody in the royal family or Charles himself indicated any interest in a divorce. They did not mind her affairs or interfere in her private life.  It was Panorama that made the situation completely untenable. She could not remain married to Charles under any circumstances and the queen was quite right to suggest (read order) a divorce.  By then Diana's children were already teenagers.

Of course Diana did not want to destroy the monarchy. She just wanted to take revenge on Charles and prevent him from being king. I am sure if the crown had been offered to Williams, she would have been delighted to play the role of "King Mother". Her friends have indicated as much.

Charles may be bitter about many things but he is certainly not bitter about marrying Camilla or Camilla herself. His second marriage has been a much better relationship for him than his first and I am sure he is grateful for that. That is the happiness I am referring to, not his childhood.

Neither is Mantel bitter. She is just a very intelligent writer that is not taken in by the mush of consensus. Her use of English language is amazing and she really does give an interesting perspective on the public responses to Diana; the point being that people projected themselves onto Diana's life. I think she is quite spot-on in that part of her analysis.

Btw not everyone that "vents" is bitter. Writers can critique the monarchy and its participants without being bitter. Mantel is a genuine and principled Republican. I can understand her reasons for being a Republican and she has never pretended to be a monarchist.

[sandy]

Diana was always dispensable. She was supposed to put up and shut up. She wanted more children and Charles said no. So no more children after Harry. Charles became more contemptuous of her even in public and she would come to Highgrove finding the mistress had redecorated and smelled her cigarette smoke on the draperies and knew Camilla played hostess in her absence. If she were indispensable the mistress would not have been allowed to usurp her place nor trash her to Charles. Mistresses of Edward VII knew their places and never tried to usurp Alexandra's place.

Diana could not have prevented Charles from being King. Charles had that unfortunate book and interview the year before Panorama which I think did more damage. But that is never addressed. If William outlived Charles of course she would have had a major role as his mother, much like Queen Mary. Even though she would not be Queen she still would have been the mother of the King. What she said to her friends is hearsay. Diana never publicly said she wanted to be "King Mother."

Charles IS bitter. He and Camilla did cooperate with Junor. ANd if he were not bitter he would not have allowed trashing of Diana which was at its worst this year by Junor. He apparently is still upset about Diana even rumored to be upset about the boys' documentaries about her. I think Charles will always be a malcontent. Camilla does not live with him all the time, since she has that bolthole at Raymill. If he were deliriously happy he would put all the grievances behind him. He has not. Camilla even whined about her being  a "prisoner" in her own home after Diana died. But she did bring it on herself. Nobody forced her to be involved with Charles after he married another woman.

Mantel trashing Kate and Diana does to me show some bitterness. Why gratuitously slam people she never met? If she criticized Camilla would you still feel the same about her? Just asking.

[royalanthropologist]

You are right that nobody is indispensable, even the Princess of Wales. Once the marriage was untenable, a divorce was arranged and concluded. I think that is a lesson that everyone in that family realized. Nobody (no matter how good and popular) is bigger than the monarchy.

The Mantel point that I am particularly interested in is the public reaction to Diana rather than where and how she found out about her husband's infidelities. Mantel makes a compelling case that Diana was partly defined by the public reaction to her and people used her as a projection board for their own perspectives.

The thing about "mistresses knowing their place" is rather old fashioned in my view and masks the real issues.  It is Charles that decided he was going to leave Diana and take up with Camilla. I always object to the other woman being blamed when a marriage fails. You just have to accept that your husband no longer loves you or wants to be with you rather than saying it is the other woman that is making him do it.

You are also right that Diana could not prevent Charles being king but she did try and wanted to. It is just that the establishment told her firmly that skipping a generation was a non-starter. When Diana was asked about skipping a generation in Panorama, she said yes. This is not hearsay from friends but Diana herself expressing her feelings, aspirations and hopes:

[BASHIR: Would it be your wish that when Prince William comes of age that he were to succeed the Queen rather than the current Prince of Wales?

DIANA: My wish is that my husband finds peace of mind, and from that follows others things, yes.]

Yes Charles may be bitter about many, many things (including Diana) but critically; he has never ever expressed any resentment or regret about his marriage to Camilla. This is not a "whatever love means" marriage like the one he had with Diana. That is the marital contentment I am talking about. Neither Charles nor Camilla has ever complained that they are unhappy about their marriage (even the arrangement of retaining separate houses).

@sandy the statement below is really ironic if you think about how Camilla is criticized on these forums:

"Why gratuitously slam people she never met?"

Mantel is well within her rights to critique the royal family and its members.

[Curryong]

Charles went back to Camilla and therefore contributed to the failure of the Wales marriage. However, Camillia also played her part by facilitating this. She knew Charles marriage was failing but she didn't have to pull the remaining part of the structure down by being his mistress. She helped to dismantle that marriage, there is no doubt about it, and she did it not only because she loved Charles but because she was contemptuous of his wife.

[sandy]

Yes she did indeed. She loathed DIana and no doubt bashed her as letters have proven.

You are right that nobody is indispensable, even the Princess of Wales. Once the marriage was untenable, a divorce was arranged and concluded. I think that is a lesson that everyone in that family realized. Nobody (no matter how good and popular) is bigger than the monarchy.

The Mantel point that I am particularly interested in is the public reaction to Diana rather than where and how she found out about her husband's infidelities. Mantel makes a compelling case that Diana was partly defined by the public reaction to her and people used her as a projection board for their own perspectives.

The thing about "mistresses knowing their place" is rather old fashioned in my view and masks the real issues.  It is Charles that decided he was going to leave Diana and take up with Camilla. I always object to the other woman being blamed when a marriage fails. You just have to accept that your husband no longer loves you or wants to be with you rather than saying it is the other woman that is making him do it.

You are also right that Diana could not prevent Charles being king but she did try and wanted to. It is just that the establishment told her firmly that skipping a generation was a non-starter. When Diana was asked about skipping a generation in Panorama, she said yes. This is not hearsay from friends but Diana herself expressing her feelings, aspirations and hopes:

[BASHIR: Would it be your wish that when Prince William comes of age that he were to succeed the Queen rather than the current Prince of Wales?

DIANA: My wish is that my husband finds peace of mind, and from that follows others things, yes.]

Yes Charles may be bitter about many, many things (including Diana) but critically; he has never ever expressed any resentment or regret about his marriage to Camilla. This is not a "whatever love means" marriage like the one he had with Diana. That is the marital contentment I am talking about. Neither Charles nor Camilla has ever complained that they are unhappy about their marriage (even the arrangement of retaining separate houses).

@sandy the statement below is really ironic if you think about how Camilla is criticized on these forums:

"Why gratuitously slam people she never met?"

Mantel is well within her rights to critique the royal family and its members.

Yes royal, but I don't think you would be so pleased if she bashed Camilla to the extent of those on the pro Diana boards. And yes, it is ironic for you too--I assume you never met Diana. Mantel would be in a better position to meet the royals being an award winning author and all that. BTW she never got to the last volume of her trilogy and it was supposed to be a trilogy.

Diana knew she could not get rid of Charles.  No way. The Queen was in charge anyway so it would have taken many many years even if she wanted to. Diana said the top job would put limits on Charles not that he was incompetent. Many others said Charles likes to speak out and the brakes would be put on his being outspoken when he's king.

I think it tacky of Camilla to sit at the wife's place she was still the mistress, she was still married to Andrew Parker Bowles and Diana was still married to Charles.  If you think it OK, that's your choice. but I don't think many wives would agree with you if hubby brought home his mistress and the wife found the mistress's things there and smelled her cigarette smoke and knew that she was redecorating. Ava Gardner tossed out her first husband when she found his mistress's things in the bedroom. So it is not pleasant. Diana did not have the same freedom as Ava since divorce was discouraged.

I think it was the right thing to do for mistresses not to be encouraged to trash and undermine the wife. ALexandra a royal in her own right was not put down by her husband's mistresses nor did they usurp her place.  It would have started an international scandal if ALexandra were so dishonored by a mistress.

Yes a royal wife is dispensable. Charles was done with Diana after she provided the heir and spare. Charles is not the first one to act this way. Diana would have been invited to all events involving her children. Not like Catherine of Aragon left to die in a damp, cold palace and separated from her child.

Charles did nothing to be proud of.

[FanDianaFancy]

Most healthy people have no hopes and dreams then when D was alive or now.

D and PC went after each other in the media with anger.

PD was indespensib because she was mother of the heirs.

Anything and everything pertaining to her children she would have been there for and C would have sat home. ex .  christenings. I know you will say she would have not. Rainer was not in W and H christening pictures. Frances was.
Maybe Raine was there but not in the picture.

Who cares,

I only like postings facts, FACTS. My opinion and others here do not matter.

I just wish you all would stick to facts and  not your bias.

Today, PD would be much a part of her sons and grandkids' lives and QEII would be okay at arms length with. Invite for  Ascot . Per QE, when acting and C are not there.  Sitting  with Carole, Pipa as  all three of them would guest of HRH, Catherine.

Sarah is mother to B and E and QE is like any grannie. She loves her grandchildren and does not speak ill of their mothers or fathers.

This author , Mantle, is writing projections, her oipinion, lies , and nonsense.

[sandy]

Even the Queen is more tolerant of Fergie now. Diana would not have been exiled.  And there might be a re marriage of Andrew and Fergie. And Mantel can't hurt Diana, she's dead. But Kate may treat her frostily after Mantels's comments which would not be a good thing for Mantel.

[tiaras]

Mantel won't ever be in the same room as the people she passes comments on, so there won't be an ocasion where Kate has to treat her frostily.

Mantel, whose latest novels are set in the Tudor court, said she saw Kate becoming a "jointed doll on which certain rags are hung". She added: "In those days [Kate] was a shop-window mannequin, with no personality of her own, entirely defined by what she wore.
Kate, the 'plastic princess': Hilary Mantel's damning take on duchess | UK news | The Guardian

What an awful woman.

[royalanthropologist]

@FanDianaFancy. You always have the option of ignoring postings you don't like. I am not in school where the teacher tells me how to think and what to post. Thank you very much.

Mantel has every right to express her opinion (it is an opinion I agree with in one respect). The personal attacks on her for that opinion are true to type and this is what always happens whenever someone says something that is remotely critical of Diana.