Remember Diana of her heydays? She was quite a fashionista. Had more of a fashion icon status than even her contemporary actresses. Her life was quite sensational, too. She knew everything about her future husband before getting in to the wedlock. And, yet, she managed to turn around, and shred in to tatters the already in crisis kinda credibility of the royalty as an institution. She chose to gallivant about with multiple lovers, and yet be called the 'people's princess'!
Such cushioned and comfortable life made most people believe in the Cinderella myth, though rather gone awry. But is it really so? What lies behind the glamour and glory?
The glitz may blind the superficial, but every sensitive heart would realise that uneasy lies the head that wears a crown as the dead Queen's life may exemplify. Let us look at one or two aspects of her life from this perspective.
Everybody knows that she was the longest in reign. But have you realised how difficult it must have been for her as a woman, as a mother, as a wife? Let us think of her as a career, or at least as a working, woman. Yes, 'being a queen' absolutely was a job, twenty four by seven at it, too, and under terrible relentless media glare!
Most importantly, she was pushed in to it because of the Mrs. Simpson-Wallis abdication by her uncle. In a way, she may not have been completely prepared for her role. Yet she performed it real well.
In a way, she could be compared to Indian women with jobs circa end 1960's, early 1970's. These women would be at least a decade older than Aai's generation, attempting lives both as home-makers and working women. They did not choose work as a career. Very, very few amongst them must have done so. Most of them would have joined the work force out of financial compulsions.
Most of them would have come to big cities from small towns, and after marriage. Mostly, their skill sets would be limited, too. Obviously, they would work as school teachers, nurses, typists, secretaries, tough, thankless jobs.
Life must have been very difficult for them, coming as they did from small towns to big cities, to begin with. Next, most of them were middle class. So the family rituals, very rigidly executed then, must have been tough to follow. How difficult it must have been, for example, to perform the Shravan Shukrawar vrat, complete with the extremely elaborate rituals and sweetmeats, and yet manage to check in at the muster at the right time.
Those days, there would not be cooks at home. It would be unthinkable buying stuff ready made. Children would not help the mother either because by that time, it was the 'hum do, hamare do ya teen' stuff. Sons would not (be allowed to) think of helping such a mother, while daughters would be preparing for their own future careers.
The elders in the family would expect the perfect strictures at each and every detail in everyday life. Mostly, families would be joint families. Surely, the in-laws would be there, and hence a constant line-up of relatives and visitors. The mother-in-law most probably would despise the working daughter-in-law, given her financial importance in the family. In other words, there would not be any support system, forget emotional succour.
And the husband? He would not be a helpmeet like the versions today. He would be the dominant partner, expecting all the traditional duties of her. Children growing up would be her worry, their illnesses to their homeworks! Moreover, male superiority would be suspicious of her every move.
That brings me back to the late Queen. Her husband would be the typical royal man, an institution, a lineage with its own chauvinism's. How did she negotiate being a queen in public with extreme pomp, and yet see to it that her royal duties did not hurt her husband's ego? She seemed to have done a rather neat job of it, however tough it must have been on her as an individual.
Remarkable, indeed! Now let me discuss the constant scrutiny, extremely heartless at that. How did she, as a mother, protect her children's vulnerabilities? Oh, yes, the Diana chapter was quite acrimonious in its intense public glare, and the ugly tabloid saga. Imagine the Queen's situation when Diana died. Most everyone accused her of not reacting immediately.
But, humanely looked at, i feel she had to consider two very young boys, already shattered by the parents' horrible divorce, the ugly stories about their mother, her accidental death, its scandal as she was with one of her lovers. The queen as a grandmother would have to comfort them, too, right? Cover up the scandal, too?!? Live up to doubts about the relevance of monarchy at such critical times as well! Tough times. Yet she seemed to do it rather gracefully.
Honestly, as a woman, my heart goes out to her. Sure, there would be minions galore. But she must have been real lonely amongst all, as a woman. Rest in peace, indeed, Lady!
Honestly, whatever could be the political leanings, i suppose, in the Indian context, as a woman, one must admire Sonia Gandhi as a daughter-in-law. She seems to be much better at this role than many of the Indian versions everywhere around us. She appears to be a very happy aunt, mother, wife. Must have been tough for her, coming as she did from a totally different cultural, and class, background.
In brief, be it the Queen of Britain and the Commonwealth, be it the daughter-in-law of a prime minister, or be it a struggling homemaker juggling with a job, uneasy lies the gracious head of every woman who simultaneously wears so many hats!
Pratima@ Women are wondrous! Women thrive on obstacles, I suppose. Wherever, however, how very many difficulties and obstacles are created in their path, they work wonders, overcoming them with grace and dignity, not to forget joy and humour.
