Such is the view of Dame Hilary Mantel, the writer of prolix pseudohistorical novels beloved of faddish critics and those who take them seriously.
As a literary celebrity, Dame Hilary assumes the right to speak for all of us, both collectively and individually. She obviously feels, against evidence, that her novels alone can’t bore us sufficiently.
“Meghan,” she writes, “was too good to be true. She was a smiling face in a dull institution, she cheered the nation up no end, or at least men and women of goodwill.”
At least there’s no novelistic equivocation here: if you weren’t cheered no end by Meghan, you aren’t a person of goodwill. Specifically, you are a racist, for there can be no other explanation for your sourpuss at the sight of Meghan.
“I do think abominable racism has been involved,” continues Dame Hilary. “People who say that’s got nothing to do with it – well, they need to check their privilege.” Whatever that means.
Assuming that the final word should have been not ‘privilege’ but ‘prejudice’, I’ve done as I’m told. I took stock of my prejudices and found none against pretty half-caste girls. I did, however, find some others.
Turns out I’m prejudiced against anybody who damages our monarchy. Corollary to that is my history-based prejudice against twice-divorced American actresses of dubious virtue using our royal family as a social-climbing ladder.
I’m prejudiced against anyone marrying into the royal family who doesn’t understand that such nuptials presuppose a lifetime commitment to service. It’s ‘service’, Meghan, not ‘self-service’. You must have misheard.
I’m prejudiced against any immigrant who knows next to nothing about Britain and understands even less, but nonetheless feels entitled to preach a full agenda of woke idiocies loudly and insistently.
I’m especially prejudiced against such a person when, by mouthing her inanities, she harms the central institution of British polity.
I’m prejudiced against foreign D-actresses treating that institution as merely a stepping stone to self-promotion and riches.
Actually, I’m also prejudiced against those born to the royal family who are stupid enough to let such gold-diggers drive a wedge into the family.
And I’m prejudiced against British writers who have so little understanding of their country’s institutions as to be able to write that, “I’m pleased that it’s the marriage that’s surviving and the connection with the monarchy that has to go…”
Touched though I am by Dame Hilary’s affection for the institution of marriage, I am appalled by her disdain for another vital institution that used to depend on marriage for its strength, but no longer can.
I understand that Dame Hilary is promoting her latest crushing bore of a novel and hence will say anything to keep her name in the news. Such crass commercialism is another thing I’m prejudiced against.
Wonderful, Mr Boot. Take a bow.
Thank you very much. But taking a bow would be difficult: I hurt my back playing tennis.
Not too seriously, I hope. Sending love. X
Definitely today’s ‘feel good’ article.
It still begs the question: How on Earth does such a shallow, idiotic author and purveyor of such trash as ‘The Assassination of Margaret Thatcher’ merit a DBE, along with her raft of literary prizes?
Is it because, to borrow Charles Moore’s theory, she has a left wing face?
Hatred of the ‘conservative establishment’ hasn’t been an obstacle to high honours for a long time. Now it’s becoming a boost.
” twice-divorced American actresses of dubious virtue ”
This means Harry could never be King under any circumstances? No King of England can marry a divorced woman?
Sound sentiments, but is it not ‘half-caste’?
Of course. Silly typo. Thank you for picking it up.
‘Historical fiction’ is the Dame’s oeuvre, a field that has probably been around before the invention of writing (in oral tradition). Literary merit is decided by literature buffs without regard to historical analysis. Works posing as historical fact may contain selective omissions which amounts to fraud (in the Trumpian sense). The film industry usually finds it easier to leave things out, change chronology and put fictional stuff in and hence save time and money and gain ‘audience appeal’.
Actually, it’s the literary quality of her output that I find wanting. Otherwise, I don’t read historical fiction to improve my knowledge of history, much as it needs improving.
That’s why I wait for the TV adaptation.