And, pray tell, what is the prince supposed to do now: pretend that he does not have the ancestry he has?
Andy Dada On 25 May 2011 06:43, Pratap <mw1_2...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Deep > > I didn't think the coverage was negative. He did not slam or question Mr. > Gohil's work. The column was more a commentary on the clueless American > public. > > I agree with the columnist's issue with the prefix Prince. > Royalty officially became extinct in 1971 in India with the abolition of > privy purses and hereditary titles. Only the former "subjects" and palace > staff may still be using the prefix. > > The Indian media never uses royal prefixes for (Maharaja) Karan Singh, > (Prince/Maharaja) Jyotiraditya Scindia, et al. Even the legendary Gayatri > Devi, Vijayaraje Scindia, etc. were typically not prefixed with Maharani. > So how come the media uses Prince only for Mr. Gohil? And does he subtly > (or overtly?) encourage it by appearing in sort of regal attire? > Is it because media everywhere find the combination of gay + Prince doubly > TRP inducing? > > Princes and principalities and palaces are all good and nice to attract > tourists. But when it comes to serious work, I don't like the exotification > (I just coined that one) of India. There is so much more to India today. > > I do think that the other activists who have worked so hard for so long > should also be recognized. > > And finally, if I were Mr. M. S. Gohil, I would personally and strongly > discourage and dissuade anyone and everyone from referring to me as Prince. > > Pratap > > --- On Sun, 5/22/11, Aditya Bondyopadhyay <adit.b...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > From: Aditya Bondyopadhyay <adit.b...@gmail.com> > > Subject: Re: g_b Mumbai Mirror - Negative Portrayal of Prince Manvendra > > To: gay_bombay@yahoogroups.com > > Date: Sunday, May 22, 2011, 5:53 PM > > Speaking for myself, I will not > > respond. > > > > I am a bit wary myself with this entire 'princely' > > balderdash, when in > > fact I grew up knowing that Ballavbhai Patil did away with > > them > > princes and their princely states in the late 40s and Indra > > Gandhi did > > away with their privy purses in the 70s, not long after I > > was born. > > > > Peddling exotica of Raj era Maharajas is nice and fine and > > well > > covered by the freedoms of expression given to all and > > sundry, but to > > take away the import of an entire movement, forget the > > efforts and > > sacrifices of many who have not any silk or brocade to > > flaunt, and to > > transmute it the level of preening peacocks in a > > costume ball of > > gaping and gawking clueless GWM, is a bit overwhelming, to > > put it > > mildly. > > > > It renders me rather speechless. So I shall not, or may be > > cannot > > respond to this, dear Deep. > > > > Best regards, > > Aditya Bondyopadhyay > > > > On 5/22/11, Deep <gaymanprou...@yahoo.co.in> > > wrote: > > > How will you respond to this article which appeared in > > the Sunday > > > edition of Mumbai Mirror? It shows Prince > > Manvendra in poor light. > > > Deephttp://gaynotes.blogspot.com > > > > > > Source: > > > > > >
