Thanks to news channels accidentally stumbling upon some real news to report like the Bin Laden execution, we were spared the excruciating details of William and Kate's 54th kiss, the dress she wore for the tea on the 9th day following the wedding, or their honeymoon plans. Now before you conclude I am some sort of a Republican riling against the Monarchists, let me remind you that the last time i checked I don't hold Her Majesty's passport, so it is not really upto me. My objections are more personal - the princess dream which every girl is supposed to secretly harbor is now suddenly deemed possible , and the celebrity culture that to borrow the famous Taibbi phrase, like a “vampire squid” has ts giant arms wrapped around every single media outlet.
Don't get me wrong. I am all for two people finding happiness in love and choosing to solemnize their relationship and I wish them every happiness. What I object to is non-subjects being subjected to unwanted intrusions into their lives. In a weird case of reverse-wedding crashers, William and Kate crashed into my life and the only way I could get away from them was to unplug my TV, never launch a browser or shut my eyes in the supermarket checkout counter and close my ears in any gathering. I am fully aware that the couple in question are not to blame,after all if 8000 "journalists" felt the compelling need to land in London with their telephoto lenses (some of which looked like mini-telescopes that could actually gaze at some real stars), what can royalty do? It is after all not the 1800s when they could banish or cut their heads off. Suddenly one wedding to a "commoner" (i don't think she is from a council flat in manchester... still a "commoner" by royalty standards, i guess) made the royal family more accessible and get this relevant! Yeah, in the year of the Arab spring when autocratic regimes with long past "use by" dates were being thrown out by popular rising, an institution that is outdated by at least a century is deemed to have become relevant again!!
Onto my second level of objection. As a woman and a mother of a little girl I have enough trouble from princesses of the Disney variety. I've written about this before. So I won't repeat it. I don't know Kate's biography, but suddenly her sole achievement as characterized by the media seems to be successfully snaring a prince, which after all is supposed to be every girl's secret dream! Now that is a message I don't ever want to communicate to my girl. Every time someone addresses my daughter as a "princess" i wince a little inside. That word is too closely associated with pink, tiaras and girliness of the kind that is 100% dependent on someone else. Relevant, role model, real - i don't expect any of this to come from today's mainstream media or popular culture. So i resorted to my trusted antidote -"The paperbag princess"! Mandatory reading according to me for every star-struck, princess possessed, celebrity crazy 4 year old or 40 year old.
So, Kate and William, I have one suggestion to make. Please announce the birth of your first child from the DRC or Haiti - two countries which can use some real journalists and media attention, and then the monarchy can truly claim to be relevant ... well ... almost!
Don't get me wrong. I am all for two people finding happiness in love and choosing to solemnize their relationship and I wish them every happiness. What I object to is non-subjects being subjected to unwanted intrusions into their lives. In a weird case of reverse-wedding crashers, William and Kate crashed into my life and the only way I could get away from them was to unplug my TV, never launch a browser or shut my eyes in the supermarket checkout counter and close my ears in any gathering. I am fully aware that the couple in question are not to blame,after all if 8000 "journalists" felt the compelling need to land in London with their telephoto lenses (some of which looked like mini-telescopes that could actually gaze at some real stars), what can royalty do? It is after all not the 1800s when they could banish or cut their heads off. Suddenly one wedding to a "commoner" (i don't think she is from a council flat in manchester... still a "commoner" by royalty standards, i guess) made the royal family more accessible and get this relevant! Yeah, in the year of the Arab spring when autocratic regimes with long past "use by" dates were being thrown out by popular rising, an institution that is outdated by at least a century is deemed to have become relevant again!!
Onto my second level of objection. As a woman and a mother of a little girl I have enough trouble from princesses of the Disney variety. I've written about this before. So I won't repeat it. I don't know Kate's biography, but suddenly her sole achievement as characterized by the media seems to be successfully snaring a prince, which after all is supposed to be every girl's secret dream! Now that is a message I don't ever want to communicate to my girl. Every time someone addresses my daughter as a "princess" i wince a little inside. That word is too closely associated with pink, tiaras and girliness of the kind that is 100% dependent on someone else. Relevant, role model, real - i don't expect any of this to come from today's mainstream media or popular culture. So i resorted to my trusted antidote -"The paperbag princess"! Mandatory reading according to me for every star-struck, princess possessed, celebrity crazy 4 year old or 40 year old.
So, Kate and William, I have one suggestion to make. Please announce the birth of your first child from the DRC or Haiti - two countries which can use some real journalists and media attention, and then the monarchy can truly claim to be relevant ... well ... almost!
I am surprised, Padma, to read your distress. Surely conventional media is "a vast wasteland," and we should expect it to emphasize the trivial rather than the material.
ReplyDeleteAs Nietzsche said, if you look long into the abyss, the abyss also looks into you. Perhaps it is good that the abyss forced you to look away. :-)