HARDY'S FUNERAL

Press, Volume LXIV, Issue 19213, 20 January 1928, Page 9

HARDY'S FUNERAL

ABSENCE OF ROYALTY. CONTROVERSY AROUSED. (BY CABLE-PRESS ASSOCIATIOH-COPYHIGHT ) (AUSTKALIAN AND N. Z . CABLE ASSOCIATION) (Received January 19th, 7.20 p . m .) LONDON, January 18. Mr Arnold Bennett finds himself assailed in a sheaf of letters published in the "Daily Express," in which paper he complained of the absence of any member of the Royal Family from the funeral of Thomas Hardy. Mr Bennett returns to the attack saying it is indisputable that the arrangements were shockingly bad. With regard to the Royal Family, he says he did not suggest that the King should be present. He realised that his Majesty, for various reasons, could not be there, and in any case such a suggestion from a private citizen was gravely out of place. "I merely permitted myself," said Mr Bennett, "to express respectful regret at his absence. I repeat that a military funeral of similar importance would not have lacked the presence ol Royalty. Although I have received scores of abusive letters, I maintain my position and in maintaining it feel lam supported by a large number of citizens."

The "Daily Express," in an editorial, says: "The Royal Family is strong and secure enough in the respect and affections of the country to stand the criticism of a sincere and reputable man of letters in Mr Bennett's position, but where Mr Bennett was wron« was in the assumption that the funeral of Thomas Hardy could properly be compared with that of a Field-Marshal or an Admiral. Such men are in the direct pay of the State, and thus in the direct service of the King. fr ■.<'■■' was in an entirely different position. It would be an intolerable burden on the King and the Royal Family, as well as a misconstruction of their functions, to expect their presence at every public funeral to witness the grief of the relatives of one who was unknown in a personal or official capacity to the Royal Family."