HARDY'S FUNERAL

Evening Post, Volume CV, Issue 16, 20 January 1928, Page 7

HARDY'S FUNERAL

ABSENCE OF ROYALTY ARNOLD BENNETT'S FLEA POSITION EXPLAINED (United Press Association.—Copyright.) LONDON, 18th Jahiiafy. Mr. Arilold Bennett find*. himself roundly assayed in a sheaf of litter's", published iii tlie "Daily Express,'* in which paper ho complained of the at»senea o( Koyalty fr6i« the Thomas Hardy funeral cerehloiiial in Westttiirister Abbey. ' Mr. Bennett Returns to the attaekj saying it is indisputable that the af< rahgehients Were Shockingly bad. With regard to Royalty, he says that he did not suggest, that the King should be present. lie realised that His Majesty, for various reasons, could not be there, and in any case, such a Suggestion ffoin private citizen's w«W gravely out of placed. "I merely, permitted myself to express respetitful regret at the absence. I repeat that & military funeral of similar importance would not havo lacked the presence ef Royalty. Although I have received scores' df abusive letters, I maintain niy pdiition, and in maintaining it I f &l I aSi supported by a large nutriber it citizens." NOT A SBUVANT OF BtAfE. The "Daily Express*' edifioftally says! "The Royal Family is strong aild secure enough in respect to the affections of the country to stand the criticism of a sincere reputable man of letters in Mr. Bennett'ri position. But where Mr. Bennett was wrong.was in the assumption that the funeral of Thomas Hardy could properly be compared with that of a Field-Marshal or an Admiral. These were in the direct pay of the Statej and thus in the direct Service of the King. Thomas H>rdy was in an entirely different position. It would be an intolerable burden on the King and Boyal Family, as well as a misconstruction of their functions, to expect their presence at every public funeral to Witness the grief of too relatives of one who was unknown in a personal or an official capacity to the Boyal Fanrilyj"