THOMAS HARDY’S BURIAL

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20311, 20 January 1928, Page 7

THOMAS HARDY’S BURIAL

THE ABSENCE OF ROYALTY. MB ARNOLD BENNETT ASSAILED. (Pt c. a Association— By Telegraph—Copyright) LONDON, January 18. (Received Jan. 19, at 8 p.m.) Mr Arnold Bennett finds himself soundly assailed in a sheaf of letters published m the Daily Express, in which paper he complained of the absence of royalty from the Thomas Hardy ceremonial._ Mr Bennett returns to the attack, saying that it is indisputable that the arrangements were shockingly bad. With regard to royalty, he says h© 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 private citizens was gravely out of place. “ I merely permitted myself to express respectful regret at the absence. I repeat that a military funeral of similar importance would not have lacked th© presence of royalty. Although I have received scores of abusive letters, I maintain my position, and in niaintaining it I feel I am supported by a large number of citizens.” The Daily Express, editorially, says: “ The Royal Family is strong and secure enough in the respect and affections of the country to stand the criticism of a sincere, reputable man of letters in Mr Bennetts position, but where Mr Bennett was wrong was in the assumption that the funeral of Hardy could properly be compared with that of a fie] dmarshal or an admiral. These are in the direct pay of the State, and thus in the direct service of the King. Hardy was in an entirely different position. It would be an intolerable burden on th e King and the Royal Family, as well as a misconstruction of their functions, to expect their pres-, ence at every public funeral to witness the grief of the relatives of one who was unknown in a personal or an official capacity to the Royal Family.”—A. and N.Z. Cable.