Hilary Mantel thinks it’s all over for the monarchy.
Booker Prize winner Dame Hilary Mantel has delivered another Royal broadside, describing the Monarchy as a ‘self-punishing institution’ facing the ‘endgame’.
Dame Hilary, 68, whose withering assessment of the Duchess of Cambridge as ‘plastic’ caused an outcry in 2013, said of the Queen: ‘I wonder if she’s the only person who really believes in the Monarchy now, and I’m sure she believes with all her heart.’
Personally, I’m ambivalent when it comes to monarchy. The thought of a professional politician as head of state sends a cold shiver down my spine, so I prefer what we have even if I’m not exactly an enthusiast. I don’t think that Charles will crown himself in glory (pun intended). William when it is his turn might prove to be a better monarch, providing he can avoid politics and wokeness. Even so, I would hardly call myself enthusiastic about the whole thing and largely ignore what is going on royalty wise.
My scepticism regarding Mantel’s claims is derived from the level of turnout for royal events and that there is clearly a hard core of monarchy enthusiasts out there. I wonder if they, combined with those who are indifferent such as I, outnumber those of a republican bent. I would not wish to bet on it all being over just yet.
Eight years ago, Dame Hilary dismissed Kate Middleton as a personality-free ‘shop window mannequin’ with a ‘plastic smile’ whose ‘only point and purpose’ was to give birth.
She sure got that wrong. Kate is clearly a queen in waiting and is a massive asset to the monarchy.
Couldn’t agree more. Charles always has been, is currently, and will continue to be a joke. William’s best attribute – by some way – is that he’s not Harry, but his chosen position on the woke spectrum is obvious. Kate is an enormous asset, but I can’t help thinking that the royal family doesn’t deserve her.
I’m not a royalist but I think the old saying about democracy being the worst form of government, apart from all the others applies to the monarchy and alternative ways of choosing a head of state.
Mantel’s harping on about the monarchy tells us rather more about Mantel than about the monarchy…
And she is against the system, yet is a Dame. Cognitively challenged, perchance – or just another lefty bandwagon jumper?
The greatest argument in favour of the monarchy is the thought of ‘President Blair’ and, even worse, ‘First Lady Cherie’. The monarchy is a harmless and impotent institution nowadays, especially when the Queen has understood the rules so well and demonstrated her adherence to them every day for so long, the alternative is unthinkable.
Kate also fully understands the current and future job spec and will carry both off with more composure and dignity in her little finger than a dozen Sparkle Markles could ever have.
And I’m not a monarchist, it’s just miles better than the alternative.
Yeah, that’s pretty much where I stand on it.
I was watching a documentary last week on Edward the VIIth, which said how unpopular he was at the start of his reign and everyone thought he’d mess it up. I thought about how this parallels the ‘consensus on Charles, and hope he too can prove the doubters wrong (I’ll admit I’m not optimistic though…)
Regarding the monarchy in general, as I’ve gotten older I’ve gone from the ambient attitude you expressed to firm supporter, partly for practical reasons over what could replace it (President Blair? Shudder) and also because constitutional monarchies and parliamentary democracies are more stable and less prone to tyrrany.
The same could be said about James II. He was unpopular from the off and it went downhill from then on.
Mantel’s an idiot. Our Royal Family is more popular than ever. Long may it continue. By the way have you have tried reading her books – in my opinion turgid. Don’t ever drop one on your foot. You will break every bone in it.
I agree. One of those authors whom people think they ought to like but really don’t.
A Republic (God bless the Lord Protector) is a grown up form of democracy where anyone can aspire to be head of state. You can elect the brightest. You do not get that with am hereditary monarchy. Keeping it in the family is the greatest form of nepotism and should not be countenanced. A constitutional monarchy is frankly ridiculous.
I can’t say that it looks very grown up from where I’m standing. Indeed, I have made the decision to abstain from voting precisely because it is a clusterfuck that disenfranchises pretty much everyone.
“You can elect the brightest.”
This theoretical possibility does not seem to be borne out by actual reality…….how many of our elected rulers right now appear to be the ‘brightest and best’? The sad reality is that democracy in the era of universal communication results in precisely the wrong sort of people putting themselves forward for selection, while the right sort of people wouldn’t touch the job with a barge pole. Political leadership is one of those rather zen scenarios whereby the very people who want to do it are the very worst people to be allowed to do it, and those who hate the idea would probably be prove to be the best leaders.
I’m beginning to wonder if we need a different form of democracy. Perhaps we should pick 10 (or more) people by lot in each constituency, and force them to stand for election, to make their political philosophy known to the public, who can then vote on who from this random selection of people from their area will represent them. Anything to get rid of the people who obviously have some deep seated psychological desire to be in charge of things.
The Athenian model in effect. Certainly what we have is not the brightest by a long chalk. They are innumerate, self-centred arseholes without an iota of morality between them. Liars charlatans and thieves.
“This theoretical possibility does not seem to be borne out by actual reality” – exactly so. The notion of selecting candidates at random … of those selected, the ones who most want power would campaign hardest. If we tried to ban campaigning, that would pretty much guarantee electing large numbers of cheats. It may better than the democracy we have now, though.
Something thing that can be said for a hereditary monarchy: while, yes, sometimes you get Henry VIII, sometimes you don’t. Democracy on the other hand actively selects for power-hungry manipulators.
From British history, the most successful arrangement seems to be a constitutional monarchy, probably with a bit more power for the monarch than we have today.
“The notion of selecting candidates at random … of those selected, the ones who most want power would campaign hardest.”
True, but if you’re selecting candidates at random, the chances of getting the Grade A narcissist borderline psychopath a***holes (Tony I’m looking at you!) we get now must be significantly lower. The ‘normal person’ quotient would rise significantly. And (a great plus this) we’d get hardly any lawyers in Parliament.
So don’t have campaigning. Jury candidates don’t campaign. Anyone who campaigns gets barred and all lawyers get barred as well.
I’ve long thought (based on experience and observation) that a burning ambition to seek public office should be grounds for disqualification.
So Sleepy Joe is the brightest?
Aye, right.
The people that pull his strings are not even the brightest.
Even in a mile deep coal mine with only a fungus for company he would not be the brightest.
And don’t you dare say that he was not elected.
Biden was elected…
…as Democrat Presidential Candidate
After that, Biden said “I don’t need no damned votes”
Yes, you CAN elect the brightest. But you only have to look across the pond to see what really happens. Are Donald and Hillary the brightest? How about Donald and Sleepy Creepy Joe? If those three are the brightest, what does it say about the other 330,000,000 Americans?
Addendum. I think that the best, most honest politicians we have had in my lifetime have been those rich enough and confident enough to say and vote as they think.
Dalyell, Benn (Tone, not his sprog.) come to mind, and I am definitely not of a socialist bent.
It seems harder to think of a Tory. Maybe Macmillan and Enoch.
Todays bunch of toadies are an avaricious, mendacious, slimey bunch of lobby fodder. All adhering to the Marxist* school of thought on principles.
* Groucho, of course.
Howard, IDS, Mogg (when back bencher), Archie Norman, Tebbit, Thatcher
Rich but bad & avaricious: Blair, Cameron, Hoon, Corbyn, Millibands, Starmer
Tony Benn, whom the USSR considered too thick for their purposes? Loved cricket though, so I’ll give him points for that.
“Booker Prize winner Dame Hilary Mantel says…”
Translated
Arty farty bleeding heart leftie says…
Response: Shut up you Britain hating champagne socialist.
Move to Venezuela. Your hero Maduro yesterday Tripled minimum wage ….
…. The new Monthly minimum wage is seven million bolivares, which is equivalent to $2.50 per month
A kilo of meat in Venezuela costs about $3.75
Poverty in UK? Does not exist
OT Sharing this here as others I’ve shared with said eg:
Freedom on June 21? No, Too many Rules & Restrictions
https://www.hartgroup.org/29-april-2021/
Why do we need an alternative to the monarchy? When Her Maj pops her clogs, let them slip into obscurity. Surely there are enough ’15 minutes of fame’ celebrities around to open a few fetes?
If ever there was an argument for getting rid of awards ceremonies this is it. They award this talentless woman the Booker prize for writing some woke bullshit and now she feels empowered to opine on all sorts of stuff the knows f*** all about.
Quite right. Her books are crap.
Look at the track records round the world of constitutional monarchies vs republics.
UK, Oz, NZ, Sweden,Norge, Denmark, Netherlands, Spain, Canada, Japan, even Thailand, and loads of others are a good demonstration that the monarchies are better at avoiding civil strife.
Not that they are ideal, just that they are more likely to avoid civil war.
The other problem with republics is they always devolve into plutocracy, see across the pond for further details.
Lord Protector, New Model Army, Parliament being told to “Go” and banning Christmas. What’s not to like?
If you had to choose between Queen Elizabeth And President Corbyn or Johnson, who would you choose?