- Free Article: No
- Contents Category: Letters
- Custom Article Title: Letters | October 2008
- Review Article: No
- Article Title: Letters | October 2008
- Online Only: No
- Custom Highlight Text:
Setting the record straight
Dear Editor,
I have to write in support of your reviewer, Nicholas Brown, in expressing reservations about the speculative nature of much of the material in Susanna de Vries’s Desert Queen: The Many Lives and Loves of Daisy Bates (April 2008). I judge only by her treatment of Ernestine Hill (whom I knew very well as my mother’s cousin, and for whom I am literary executor). Since some people are proposing a biography of Ernestine, it is most important to set the record straight.
There was never any parallel between Ernestine’s pregnancy and that of the typical ‘girls’ of that period. An abortion was never even considered. She was delighted with her pregnancy and recorded that the birth of her son, Robert, was the ‘happiest day of my life’.
Her parents never discussed ‘backyard abortions’ with her. In fact, her father had died when she was eleven! Not only had Ernestine’s father brought his own illegitimate daughter to join Ernestine’s mother when he married her, but on hearing of Ernestine’s pregnancy her mother’s unmarried sister undertook to be with Ernestine when the baby was born. She was with them through the first four years.
Nor was there ever any rumour that Frank Packer was her baby’s father. Her son, Robert Hill, was well informed by his mother of the fact that Robert Clyde Packer (Frank Packer’s elder son) was his father. He contributed to her son’s upkeep until his death when Robert was ten years old, though this was done in an almost untraceable way. My father, Charles Bateson, who was also a journalist in Sydney at the time, knew of Packer’s arrangements and told me of them at the time of Ernestine’s death.
It is not the place here to try to correct all of de Vries’s misleading ‘facts’ about Ernestine. I intend to do this more fully by placing a commentary on de Vries’s treatment of Ernestine in archival collections that specifically hold material on her. I must, however, mention that De Vries’s slackness in research is further demonstrated by the fact that she reproduces a photograph of my mother, Coy Bateson, née Lynam, as being that of Ernestine!
HarperCollins has undertaken to correct facts about Ernestine Hill in a rewrite of appropriate portions in any future editions of this title.
Louise Campbell, Trentham, Vic.
Don’t rain on their parade
Dear Editor,
I write to support your complaint about the poor representation of creative artists on Australia’s honours lists (Advances, July–August 2008). While not wanting to rain on the parade of politicians, public servants, community workers, sportspeople et al. (and while agreeing that the Adelaide Crow’s Andrew McLeod deserves some sort of award for being poetry in motion), the imbalance does seem stark. Perhaps it’s because many creative artists spend their time taking potshots at the Establishment. In Australia at least, many dissenters are actually quite mild and cuddly; still, it’s not surprising that we don’t reward whingers for their whinging.
In this light, I propose a new national honour: Services to Dissent (or, unfortunately, STDs). I suppose the problem would quickly become how to weed out the ‘good’ dissenters from the ‘mad and bad’. Perhaps a committee could adjudicate on eligibility, notwithstanding likely spats as to who should serve on it. For chairperson I suggest Peter Garrett, who knows how to do the Establishment-dissent splits, though not without pulling the occasional muscle.
Patrick Allington, South Plympton, SA
Comments powered by CComment