Royal Bodies
Hilary Mantel
The 21st of February, award-winning and best-selling English writer, Hilary Mantel is born in 1952, who is particularly famous for her historical novels, held a speech, called “Royal Bodies”, at the first one of the year’s London Review of Books lectures at the British Museum. It’s focused on the UK monarchy, the royal family, how they’re being exposed to the public, what Hilary Mantel’s opinion on them and her style of approaching them. But what is her view on them, how does she think we treat them? Princess Diana was romantic novel reader, but was that solemnly because she knew that she would never have her happy ending because of her position because of who she was, a royal and what kind of world do they live …show more content…
Even though she talks about “Kate becoming a jointed doll” (citat henvisning) that she is so perfect “designed by a committee and build by craftsmen, with a plastic smile” (citat henvisning) “dead eyes and a strained smile” (citat henvisning), Kate is with all this being described as a plastic princess, so soul, no substance just a perfect body with a perfect smile. Just as she refers to, (citat henvisning) when she talks about seeing the Prince of Wales for the first time, she only saw him, not who he was as a human being, because she solemnly focused on him as a jointed doll and pure entertainment, we allow it to be just that “in the same way that we license strip joints and lap dancing” (citat henvisning). The reason is that the media have told us to do so, to discuss their every move and behaviour as when “BBC News devoted a discussion to whether a pregnant woman could safely put on a turn of speed while wearing high heels” (citat henvisning) they tell us to never leave them alone, when we, as such intelligent people should devote ourselves to. Cheerful curiosity, that’s okay, no harm done in that we just have to be aware that it can easily become cruelty “Diana was spared, at …show more content…
When she stares at her it’s like she stares at the monarchy and what the word itself defines and not her nothing personally towards Her Majesty. It’s at this point her sympathy shifts from behind the sofa where she sat on the floor and observed the rest of the night. As the guest ebbed away and the rooms emptied she turns around and she the sticks from the canapés, that in her opinion honestly are skewers or kebabs if you will, they were served during the night and a thought startles her, that if the queen was to walk into this particular room again later this evening all she would she is the remains of what was here what the guest left when they returned to their real life and she returns to being a panda inside an airy cage without a spirit and personality. Returns to something that’ll never really reveal its true colours and that it’s something that gives her a challenge as a historian writer. Because they are both gods and beasts, persons and supra-persons they are breeding stock, collections of organs that don’t change. Their world don’t change they live a life,
Hilary Mantel
The 21st of February, award-winning and best-selling English writer, Hilary Mantel is born in 1952, who is particularly famous for her historical novels, held a speech, called “Royal Bodies”, at the first one of the year’s London Review of Books lectures at the British Museum. It’s focused on the UK monarchy, the royal family, how they’re being exposed to the public, what Hilary Mantel’s opinion on them and her style of approaching them. But what is her view on them, how does she think we treat them? Princess Diana was romantic novel reader, but was that solemnly because she knew that she would never have her happy ending because of her position because of who she was, a royal and what kind of world do they live …show more content…
Even though she talks about “Kate becoming a jointed doll” (citat henvisning) that she is so perfect “designed by a committee and build by craftsmen, with a plastic smile” (citat henvisning) “dead eyes and a strained smile” (citat henvisning), Kate is with all this being described as a plastic princess, so soul, no substance just a perfect body with a perfect smile. Just as she refers to, (citat henvisning) when she talks about seeing the Prince of Wales for the first time, she only saw him, not who he was as a human being, because she solemnly focused on him as a jointed doll and pure entertainment, we allow it to be just that “in the same way that we license strip joints and lap dancing” (citat henvisning). The reason is that the media have told us to do so, to discuss their every move and behaviour as when “BBC News devoted a discussion to whether a pregnant woman could safely put on a turn of speed while wearing high heels” (citat henvisning) they tell us to never leave them alone, when we, as such intelligent people should devote ourselves to. Cheerful curiosity, that’s okay, no harm done in that we just have to be aware that it can easily become cruelty “Diana was spared, at …show more content…
When she stares at her it’s like she stares at the monarchy and what the word itself defines and not her nothing personally towards Her Majesty. It’s at this point her sympathy shifts from behind the sofa where she sat on the floor and observed the rest of the night. As the guest ebbed away and the rooms emptied she turns around and she the sticks from the canapés, that in her opinion honestly are skewers or kebabs if you will, they were served during the night and a thought startles her, that if the queen was to walk into this particular room again later this evening all she would she is the remains of what was here what the guest left when they returned to their real life and she returns to being a panda inside an airy cage without a spirit and personality. Returns to something that’ll never really reveal its true colours and that it’s something that gives her a challenge as a historian writer. Because they are both gods and beasts, persons and supra-persons they are breeding stock, collections of organs that don’t change. Their world don’t change they live a life,