Art vs reality

Watching the latest series of The Crown seems like an exercise in voyeurism

So the final season of The Crown (or rather, the first four episodes) dropped on Netflix. And there was a certain predictability to the way I dropped everything else and settled down on my couch to binge watch it. And now, after that marathon viewing session, here are some of my thoughts. 

• The more recent the events covered by The Crown, the more uncomfortable the watch. Now that we are into the period in which Princess Diana died tragically, watching the show feels like an exercise in voyeurism. We see her talking with her young sons, William and Harry, on the phone, all three oblivious to the fact that this will be their last conversation. We look on as Prince Charles wakes up his ‘darling boys’ to break it to them that their mother has died. Mercifully, the scene is sans any audible dialogue but just seeing the expressions of devastation on William and Harry’s faces makes you feel as if you are intruding on a family tragedy. (Spoiler alert: that is exactly what all of us watching are, in fact, doing.)
• Elizabeth Debicki looks uncannily like Diana and is decked out in an identical wardrobe to depict the Princess’ last days on earth. But for all her cocking her head sideways and looking up shyly in a manner that is supposed to mimic the Princess, she fails singularly in projecting the charisma and star quality that made Diana such a supernova on the world stage. She plays Diana as a victim — perhaps with the benefit of hindsight — when in reality Diana was emerging, post-divorce, as a significant force in her own right. Diana’s strength and power as she took on the royal family are missing in this portrayal which is keen to emphasise her sadness and essential loneliness. 
• You never feel more regretful of the rift that has formed between William and Harry than when you watch the bond between the brothers as they negotiate boyhood together within the protocol-bound confines of the royal family. They laugh and josh with their parents as a team. They both seem suspicious of the sudden closeness blooming between their mother and Dodi Fayed. And when tragedy strikes William is the protective brother who tries to shield Harry from the world and the knowledge that things will never be the same again for either of them. What a shame that brotherly bond could not endure into adulthood. 
• And finally, why does Peter Morgan, the creator of The Crown, hate the late Queen Elizabeth so much? Whatever else you might think of her — and by all accounts, she was not a great mother — she was an adored grandmother in her later years, with all her grand kids testifying to how much she loved them. And yet, even as Diana lies dead and her sons are inconsolable, we don’t get as much as a glimpse of the Queen comforting them — even though both William and Harry credited her with getting them through that awful time. But I guess a remote and unfeeling Queen is what worked best in Morgan’s script, so that’s what we are saddled with here.

       As they don't say, the pen is mightier than the crown -- at least in the universe

       of the Crown.

The Harry and Meghan Show

It’s the royal soap opera; and none of us can turn away…

 

The key thing about understanding the dynamic between Harry and Meghan, still styled as the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, despite flouncing out of the royal family many years ago, is that they are coming at the fame game from opposite ends of the spectrum. Prince Harry, the second son of Princess Diana, has spent his entire adult life trying to lower his profile, dodging the media, and hiding from the paparazzi. Meghan Markle, C-list actress from a cable show (which is as far from Hollywood as you can get), on the other hand, has spent her entire life trying to raise her profile by getting the media interested in her. And by marrying Prince Harry, she has certainly got more than she bargained for. 

 

But as you watch Harry and Meghan, the Netflix show on the pair’s life, you realize that instead of Harry elevating Meghan to the A-list, she has succeeded in dragging him down to the C-list. Consider this for a moment. Can you imagine any other A-list couple – think the Obamas or the Clooneys, on whom the Markles clearly model themselves – agreeing to let TV cameras into their lives to this extent? Can you see them revealing the early text messages they exchanged, intimate photos of their dating days, pictures and videos of their children? Do you really think any A-lister would offer up their life for public delectation as Harry and Meghan have? I think not. The Duke and Duchess of Netflix, on the other hand, have no problem whatsoever in invading their own privacy in spades – all the while complaining about the media intrusion into their lives. 

 

As the series unravels you can tell that Meghan is in her element; she is finally playing the lead in a show, rather than a supporting part as she had done throughout her career. And it is the role of a lifetime – more so because it is her lifetime that is being examined, burnished and then presented to what she hopes is an adoring public. It is Harry who has been reduced to playing the supporting role, nodding along to her more outrageous claims, and looking angry and helpless in equal measure as she dissolves into tears. But whatever the truth of all their claims of ill-treatment by the royal family, one thing is without doubt: this is Meghan’s world; Harry just merely lives (and whines) in it.

 

That said, it is easy to feel sorry for the artist formally known as Prince. In some ways, he is still the 12-year-old trapped in the trauma of losing his mother in a tragic accident and then being made to walk behind her coffin in front of weeping crowds. So, it is entirely understandable that he constantly compares Meghan to his mother and insists that they are essentially the same person. You don’t need to be a psychiatrist to understand why he wants to turn his wife into his mother – this way, he can finally save her. (Certainly, Harry himself is Diana incarnate in this ‘docu-series’: hurt; seeking revenge; throwing grenades into the heart of the royal family; attacking his brother; accusing his father of untruths; and the royal family of racism, or what he kindly refers to as ‘unconscious bias’.)

 

Sadly, for Harry, there are some ways in which Meghan is exactly like his mother. No, not like the Sainted Diana of Fond Memory, who has now taken over the public imagination, but the media-savvy, manipulative, vindictive Diana who has been conveniently airbrushed from history after her death. This was the Diana who was not speaking to her mother, Francis Shand-Kydd, when she died, having frozen her out and returned her letters unopened (Thomas Markle, anyone?). This was the Diana who would leak stories to favoured news outlets and sneak in her favourite journalists into Kensington Palace by hiding them in the trunk of her car. 

 

It was not privacy that either Diana or Meghan aspired to. It was control of the narrative. And that is something that Meghan and her husband have certainly achieved in his six-part series. The Duke once compared life in the royal family to being ‘a cross between the Truman show and a zoo’. Well, he’s now gone and made his own Truman show, starring in it along with his entire family.

 

I hope the money was worth it.

Soap Oprah

There is no escaping Meghan and Harry – even if you have zero interest in the British royal family

 

Harry and Meghan. Or Meghan and Harry, to give them their correct billing. There really is no escaping them, is it? Even if you have zero interest in the British royal family, there is no way you can have avoided all those clips of the ‘bombshell’ Oprah tell-all that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex conducted last week – or, for that matter, the reams of commentary that followed. 

 

Having devoured it all – there is nothing I love more than a good soap opera, or should that be soap Oprah? – I now feel as if I have been transported back to the 1990s, when Harry’s mother, Princess Diana, was cast in the role that Meghan is now playing. Diana’s ‘explosive’ confessional featured on the BBC’s Panorama show and was conducted by Martin Bashir, a little-known journalist at the time. Harry and Meghan’s inquisition, on the other hand, was at the hands of Oprah Winfrey, who is arguably more famous than both of the ‘royals’ put together. 

 

But if you ignore that minor difference, the parallels come at you fast and furious. Like Princess Diana, Meghan talks about her mental health struggles, admitting that there was a phase – when she was pregnant with Archie – that she actively thought about taking her own life, such was her unhappiness within the royal world in which she felt like a trapped prisoner. Diana had complained famously that she got no support from the royal family when she married into the institution. Meghan lays the same allegation at the doors of what she calls ‘the firm’ – and then throws in the charge of racism, with the shocking admission that a senior member of the royal family had concerns about the colour of the skin of their prospective children.

 

Even the visual cues are meant to evoke memories of Diana. Like the Princess in her Panorama interview, Meghan is wearing black, her eyes are heavily rimmed with kohl, and she speaks with the same soft cadences as Diana did, as she aims missile after missile at the heart of the British royal family. There are tangible, physical reminders of Diana too, sparkling on Meghan’s wrist, where she sports the diamond bracelet that used to belong to her mother-in-law. The message is clear: Diana is part of their story, giving them both inspiration and strength to go forth on their own path.

 

In a strange way, that makes sense. In some ways, Harry and Meghan are living the life that Diana never got to experience. It is all too likely that if the Princess had lived beyond her 36 years – which is, ironically, exactly the age Harry is now – she would have ended up in America, where she was always wildly popular. There was some speculation that she would end up married to an American billionaire and would start a philanthropic career in the States. With the establishment of their Archewell Foundation, Harry and Meghan are starting down that road, though it is lined with multi-million dollar deals with the likes of Netflix and Spotify. 

 

And more importantly, perhaps, even 24 years after her tragic death Princess Diana is still a shining star in the American celebrity firmament. So evoking her name and memory is as good a way as any of sprinkling some stardust on yourself when you are out to establish yourself as A-list figures in the States. 

 

So, what is the problem exactly, you may well ask. Why do Meghan and Harry feel the need to air all their dirty family laundry in front of an audience of millions? After all, they have achieved what they set out to do. They have landed on their feet in California, living in a palatial mansion that cost around 14 million dollars, with commercial deals that ensure that they never have to worry about paying the bills. And judging by the reaction to their Oprah interview, they are much loved by the American people. 

 

And yet, when you watch Meghan and Harry opening their hearts to Oprah, you can’t help but feel that these are not happy people. They seem unable to shake off the grievances that are mooring them in the past, dwelling on the injustices heaped on them by an uncaring monarchy, instead of focusing on the bliss that surely lies in their future. And that, if you ask me, is the real tragedy.

Royal Progress

The latest season of The Crown is more fiction than fact; but great fun nonetheless

It’s more than a little disconcerting when a ‘period drama’ is about events that you remember all too clearly because you lived through them. Not only does it make you wonder how old you have become, if you are anything like me, you spend your entire time shouting at the TV screen, “No, no, no! That’s not how it happened at all!”

So, yes, that’s how I watched season four of The Crown, the Netflix series based loosely – and on the evidence of the latest episodes, very loosely indeed – on the life and times of Queen Elizabeth II and her family. And now that I have finished bingeing on the series, here are some of my entirely random thoughts and observations.

•       This season of the show owes more to writer Peter Morgan’s imagination than it does to history. Even in the earlier series, Morgan had played fast and loose with facts (Prince Philip was never implicated in the Profumo affair; and nor did he have an affair with a ballerina) but the plot remained true to essential facts. That is not
true of season four at all. Instead, Morgan cheerfully makes things up to move the plot forward, which has the effect of making even the events that are rooted in reality seem fictitious.

•       The nuanced portrayal of the royals in the previous seasons has given way to an almost caricature-like quality. The Queen is depicted as a cold, awkward woman, so distant from her children that she asks her courtiers to prepare notes on each child’s hobbies and interests before she meets them so that she is not ‘unprepared’. The sensitive Prince Charles of season three is nowhere to be found; instead the heir of the throne is a self-pitying figure consumed with jealousy of his young wife. Princess Margaret is reduced to a boorish presence with a complete lack of charm and grace. Suffice to say, it is difficult to recognize these characters as the same ones who populated The Crown’s universe in seasons two and three.

•        I am no fan of Margaret Thatcher but, honestly, the Iron Lady deserved better than the mincing, parody-like performance that Gillian Anderson offers in her rendering of the British Prime Minister. Anderson plays her like a hunched old woman, perpetually put upon, both weary and worn-down. You never ever get a hint of the force of nature that Thatcher, a truly transformative figure, was during this period. And that is truly a missed opportunity.

•       The best thing about the show is Emma Corrin’s performance as Princess Diana. She gets Diana’s charm and coyness just right, that slight tilt of the head as she looks up through her lashes at the world, that tremulous smile. But where the show fails – and this is Morgan’s failure rather than Corrin’s – is that it fails to capture the essence of Diana’s personality. Yes, she was naïve in some ways, but she was cunning and manipulative in many others. She may have started out as Shy Di but she soon learned to play the media like a maestro. There were myriad dimensions to her personality and to project her as a mere victim is to do her injustice.

•       Was 80’s fashion really as awful as it is portrayed in this series? I was a college kid, and then a young professional, during this decade and I always thought that we dressed reasonably stylishly. But I couldn’t help cringing at the young Lady Diana’s wardrobe in this series. All those piecrust collars, novelty cardigans, and
meringue-like gowns seem so hopelessly dated, even downright dowdy. That sent me scurrying back to my own photo albums of this period to revisit my own ‘look’ during this time. And you know what, the series has got this entirely right. The 80s really are the decade that fashion forgot.

•       And finally, is it fair to make a TV series about people who are still alive and susceptible to being hurt by the portrayal of their inner lives? How would Charles and Camilla feel, for instance, about being reduced to adulterous fornicators? And how would Prince William and Harry feel about watching their ‘mother’ with her head stuck down a toilet bowl? Is turning other people’s lives into our entertainment
ever a good idea? There are no easy answers; but it’s worth thinking about, anyway.

Relatively speaking

It’s not just Meghan Markle; everyone has those family members from hell. The trick is how you deal with them 

You have to feel for Meghan Markle. The former TV actress who is now wife to Prince Harry and restyled as the Duchess of Sussex, has had the worst luck with her birth family ever since her engagement was announced. 

First it was her half-sister, Samantha Markle, and her half-brother, Thomas Markle Jr, who were trying their best to embarrass her. Samantha announced that she was going to publish a tell-all book called The Diary of Princess Pushy’s Sister. She also regularly went on Twitter rants, rebuking Meghan for being everything from a fraud to a hypocrite and berating Harry for having failed to see through her. Doing one better, Thomas Markle Junior, went so far as to write an open letter to Prince Harry, telling him that he was making a huge mistake marrying his sister, and that he would be best advised to call the wedding off.

So far so utterly charming. 

But if this was not enough, Meghan’s father soon joined the fray, doing his own bit to embarrass his soon-to-be-royal daughter. In the run-up to the wedding, Thomas Markle Sr was exposed as having staged paparazzi shots for which he was paid handsomely. Then, in a fit of embarrassment he declined to attend the wedding, at which he was to walk his daughter down the aisle, claiming (falsely, it turns out) to have had heart surgery.

After the wedding, he gave a series of interviews in which he revealed that his daughter wanted to get pregnant pronto. He gave away Prince Harry’s views on Brexit and Donald Trump, quite oblivious of the fact that royals are not supposed to air their opinions on politics in public.

And when, inevitably, his daughter froze him out – out of the fear of having every private conversation repeated to the press – he sat down with the Daily Mail for nine hours over three days to rail against Meghan for ‘ghosting him’, proclaiming that he had made her the Duchess she was today and that she would be ‘nothing’ without him.

Honestly, it’s enough to make you weep. You can just about make your peace with siblings (okay, half-siblings) saying awful things about you. But to have your own father spew such bile must be a hard cross to bear. More so since Meghan is now bound by the rules of the British royal family, which entail that one must “never complain, never explain”. So, she has to seethe in private while her father holds forth about how her mother-in-law, the late lamented Princess Diana, would have ‘loathed’ the way Meghan is treating him.

As toxic parents go, Thomas Markle Sr takes not just the biscuit but the entire bakery. He is entitled, obnoxious, narcissistic and impossible to shut up. So, how do you deal with someone like him, without losing your own sanity in the bargain?

Well, in case you are coping with a Thomas Markle of your own, here are a few pointers.

• First off, don’t engage. In that, at least, Meghan Markle has the right idea. The only way to deal with people who bring toxic energy into your life, is to head them off at the pass. Don’t allow them any mindspace. Don’t respond to their micro and macro-aggressions. Meet their every utterance with a wall of silence. It will annoy them no end. It may make them step up their campaign of attrition. But over a period of time, when they are met with no response, they will have to admit defeat and leave you alone. Just be patient and hang in there until that happens.

• Don’t feel guilty. Toxic family members will try their best to induce guilt about how you are treating them. Parents like Thomas Markle Sr will try and remind you how much you owe them, given how much they spent on your education. But that is not reason enough to keep toxic people in your life. If they need financial support then set up an arrangement. But don’t let people guilt-trip you into accepting toxic behavior as a given. You deserve better, and you should never forget that.

• Don’t give in to emotional blackmail. Perhaps one of the most vile things that Thomas Markle Sr said in his interview to the Daily Mail was that it might be easier on Meghan if he died. That way at least people would have sympathy for her. Cue the violins. Daddy is at death’s door and that horrid daughter can’t even pick up the phone and call him. Yes, that’s right, she can’t. There is a reason for that. Daddy is using his health as a get-out-of-jail card. He is using his heart condition to tug at his daughter’s heartstrings. And there really can’t be a more cynical ploy than that. 

• And last of all, surround yourself with positive energy to counteract all that negative energy that is targeting you. Go out with friends to watch a movie. Set some time aside to read a good book. Cook a nice meal. Feed your friends and family. When it all becomes too much for you, just step away from the world and go for a walk with just your music to keep you company. And in a world in which good and bad are constantly doing battle, always come down on the side of the good.

Mid-life crisis

You know you are well and truly middle-aged when...

You know you're getting old when a historic anniversary comes along and you realize with a start that you remember the event itself like it was yesterday. Well, that's certainly how I felt when I read that Princes William and Harry were planning to celebrate their late mother's memory by installing her statue at Kensington Palace. This was where Princess Diana had lived and brought up her boys, and the brothers believed that this would be a fitting tribute to their mother on her 20th death anniversary.

It was the phrase '20th death anniversary' that took my breath away. I still have crystal-clear recollection of the morning Princess Diana died. I remember sitting on my purple polka-dotted wrought-iron chair to take a call on the landline in my little barsati in Defence Colony. It was my office calling from Calcutta to tell me that a) Princess Diana had been killed in a car accident in Paris and b) they wanted a feature story on her life and times by 5 pm latest.

I remember the utter shock and disbelief I felt when I first heard the words "Princess Diana is dead." I remember lurching to the TV to see for myself if this unbelievable news was true. I remember spending the day glued to BBC and CNN, breaking away just long enough to file my piece.

Was it really that long ago? Can 20 years really have passed by so quickly?

On a rational level, of course, I know that they have. Prince William is now practically middle-aged himself, loyal husband to his wife and loving father to two kids of his own. And Prince Harry is, well, still Prince Harry. So, yes, the death of the Princess took place a lifetime ago. And yet it doesn't really feel like that. And every time I think about the fact that two whole decades have passed since that horrific car crash in Paris, I can't help but feel terribly old myself.

Nor is it world events alone that make me feel every one of my years. There are many other things in daily life that conspire to make me feel more middle-aged every day.

Last night was a good example. I walked into a new, trendy watering hole in Delhi, with my husband, looking for a post-dinner drink. And the first person we bumped into was the daughter of a friend, a lovely young woman whom we have known since she was a child. We said hello, hugged her, and then exchanged a speaking glance. When you're called 'Uncle' and 'Aunty' the moment you walk into a bar, it may be the universe telling you that this place is not for you, after all!

Of late, these epiphanies pile up every day, telling me that I am now well and truly middle-aged. Here's just a random sampling:

* Watching the controversial Netflix show, 13 Reasons Why, with one of my young nieces, I was astonished to discover that she had never used a cassette tape in her life. When did they go out of fashion? Did nobody make 'mixed tapes' any more as presents for their boyfriend/girlfriend? Will this new generation just see them as a vehicle for a suicidal teen to send a message from beyond the grave? For some reason, that makes me very sad.

* Matters have improved since Donald Trump became President of the United States (now there's a sentence I never thought that I would write) but when Barack Obama was in the White House and David Cameron in Downing Street, I always felt that there was something wrong with the world. These people were my generation, for God's sake! How did they get to be in charge? Where were the real grown-ups? And then came the sobering realization that we were now truly the adults in the room. What a scary thought!

* I guess there is a first time for everything, but I never thought that the day would come when I would turn down champagne on a long-haul flight because it was too early in the afternoon. No, I said to myself, as the drinks trolley rolled up. If you drink that now, you will be ready for bed when you land. So pace yourself and hold out for a nice glass of red with dinner. Clearly, my days of irresponsible drinking and flying are well and truly over. Now, it's going to be middle-aged moderation all the way. (What a bore!)

* And then, there is the small stuff. When staying in sounds like a far more attractive proposition than going out; when you choose the elevator rather than the stairs even if you're only going up one floor; when a gentle walk seems more do-able than a full-throttle jog around the park; when a pair of ballet flats seem more enticing than vertiginous stilettos; when you need those glasses to actually read rather than just work the librarian-chic look; well, that's when you know that middle age has struck.

If any of this sounds remotely familiar, then I have bad news for you. No matter how glossy your hair, no matter how trim your waistline, no matter how trendy your playlist, no matter how exciting your social life, your youth is well and truly behind you.

You, my friends, are now middle-aged. Acknowledge it; accept it; and, if you can, embrace it.

The Royal Progress

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have departed to balmy Britain; but here's a list of what we learnt from their visit

So, that much-awaited Royal Visit (so important that it must always be capitalized) is now over. The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have come to India, pressed some flesh, posed for some pretty pictures, made a little detour to Bhutan, performed the obligatory photo-call at the Taj Mahal, and gone back to their country home in Norfolk to cuddle their bonny babies. But their short visit was long enough to give us some insights into both the Royal family and the world's (not to mention, the media's) reaction to them.

And this, in no particular order of importance, is what we learnt.

* Prince William is always Prince William. At a pinch he is the Duke of Cambridge. Sometimes, for novelty's sake, he is referred to pithily as HRH. And headline writers seem to prefer the affectionate diminutive, Will. But Catherine, his Duchess, is routinely described as Kate Middleton. It makes no difference that she no longer uses her maiden name. It is of no consequence that she was never called Kate -- not by her family nor by William -- but always Catherine. As far as the media are concerned, the commoner who overreached and acquired the title of Her Royal Highness must be reminded everyday that she is, at the end of the day, just plain old Kate Middleton (you know the one they used to call 'Waitey Katie').

* Bollywood is now officially Indian royalty. So the first engagement the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge attended (after paying tribute to those who died during the 26/11 terror attack at the Taj) was a fundraiser attended by Bollywood's biggest and brightest. Everyone from Shah Rukh Khan and Aishwarya Rai to Alia Bhatt and Parineeti Chopra turned up to break bread with William and Catherine. And true to form, the Bollywood royals effortlessly out-blinged the blue-bloods; even the Duchess's royal blue dress couldn't quite win that battle.

* The Duchess' stylists were clearly confused between India and Saudi Arabia. So even in the sweltering heat of an Indian spring that felt more like summer, poor Catherine had to wear ankle-length dresses and full sleeves in keeping with the 'modest dress code' prevalent in these parts. The poor woman must have been thoroughly confused seeing the midriff and cleavage revealing outfits the actresses wore to the ball (oops, sorry, fundraiser).

* It doesn't matter if you are British royalty, a movie star, a minor celebrity or a standard-issue woman, the tabloid press -- and sadly, even some broadsheet papers -- will treat you as a collection of body parts. So your legs, your derrière, your breasts, will be subjected to constant scrutiny and held up to some media-mandated standard of beauty. And yes, if you suffer a wardrobe malfunction, if that demure skirt flies up momentarily at a public function, then that's the image that will be broadcast all over the world.

* No royal visit (or any other kind, actually) to India is complete without a mandatory reference to Slumdog Millionaire. This time, the phrase was pulled out when William and Catherine paid a visit to underprivileged children in a Mumbai slum. And no, it never occurs to the British press that calling 'little brown children' slumdogs is incredibly offensive, not to mention rabidly racist.

* The Raj may have ended decades ago but Indians are still suckers for British royalty. So the best and brightest of Delhi's high society turned up at the British High Commission to greet the Duke and Duchess, even if it was from behind a velvet rope line. Wonder if any of them used that magic phrase of the Queen's on her grandson: "Have you come far?"

* No matter how minuscule your Kingdom, if you are King and Queen you get to lord it over those with lesser titles. So it was that King Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck and Queen Jetsun Pema of Bhutan granted Prince William, heir to the heir to the throne of the United Kingdom, and his wife, a royal audience in their Golden Throne Room. It is not clear if William and Catherine were required to bow/curtsy before the more senior royals. But going by past precedent (William's mother, Princess Diana, had to curtsy to Emperor Akihito when she visited Japan) it is not entirely beyond the realm of possibilities.

* The ghost of Princess Diana lives on and will continue to haunt William and Catherine for years to come. And not just in that famous sapphire engagement ring that the Duchess wears on her finger. No, their every public engagement will be held up to comparison with how the Prince and Princess of Wales conducted themselves in their time. And that famous photograph of Diana, sitting wan and lonely on that bench in front of the Taj, will be pulled out to contrast her sadness and loneliness with the picture of marital bliss her son and daughter-in-law law present five years into their own marriage

* Though she is constantly compared to Diana, the woman whom Catherine most clearly resembles is the one whom her mother-in-law dismissed as the 'Rottweiler'. She has the same no-nonsense, jolly-hockey-sticks, Home Counties charm that Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, exudes on her public appearances. There is the same ready laugh, the enjoyment of a good joke and the ability to put people at ease. And more importantly, there is the same discretion. Just as Camilla has never put a foot wrong after joining the Royal Family, Catherine has conducted herself just as impeccably. Makes you wonder how history would have turned out if Charles had been allowed to marry his own 'Kate' just like William got to marry his 'Camilla'.

Happily ever after...

Prince Charles and Camilla: a love story for our times

Last week, Prince Charles brought the house down at one of his many engagements in India by referring to his wife, Camilla, as his ‘Mehbooba’. No, he wasn’t inspired by the iconic song of the same name from Sholay. The word had been gifted to him by some of his Indian friends back in the UK, who had explained that it meant ‘beloved’. So, that’s how Charles presented Camilla to the assembled guests, “My wife…my Mehbooba” even as Camilla blushed and then flashed her trademark jolly-hockey-sticks grin. And the audience lapped it up; this unabashed display of middle-aged love.

And indeed, looking at the many images of the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall on their recent trip to India, one thing shines clear. Camilla is clearly Charles’ ‘Mehbooba’. The pair of them look as loved up as a newly-wedded couple, exchanging complicit glances, the odd giggle, and touching each other with the ease of long intimacy. They share asides, gaze adoringly at one another, laugh easily and often, and seem to take enormous pleasure in each other’s company. Not bad going for a couple which first met and fell in love in their 20s, and then made their way back to one another after two failed marriages and much rotten publicity. But clearly, all those scandals are long forgotten as the British heir to the throne readies to take over from his mother, with the woman he has loved for most of his adult life firmly by his side.

They were together on the banks of the Ganga in Rishikesh, performing a ritual aarti; they visited the Indian Military Academy (IMA) in Dehradun; they did the rounds of Asha Sadan, a home for abandoned and homeless children in Mumbai; they were the star attraction at a party hosted by Mukesh and Neeta Ambani for the Prince’s British Asian Trust; and then they headed off to Sri Lanka, where Charles was standing in for his mother, Queen Elizabeth, at the meetings of Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM).

For us in India, the contrast to the way things had unfolded when Charles visited with his first wife, Diana, were too stark to miss. There was the famous kiss-that-wasn’t when Charles bent down to kiss Diana on the cheek as she handed him a polo trophy only to have her turn away, leaving him red-faced with embarrassment and fury. And who can forget that haunting image of the Princess posing forlorn and alone in front of that monument to eternal love, Agra’s Taj Mahal, while her husband busied himself with engagements in Delhi? They may have been joined together in what was billed as a fairy-tale wedding, but their strained expressions and public unhappiness made it clear that they were rapidly building up to a nightmare divorce.

Who could have predicted then that Charles would one day be back with a new wife, Camilla – then widely reviled as the mistress who had been the third person in the Wales marriage and had, in the Princess’ memorable phrase, made it a ‘bit crowded’ – the memories of the Diana years finally exorcised? Gone was the miserable git who looked perennially pensive and glum. In his place, was a man finally happy in his own skin, who had found the contentment and peace he had always been looking for in his second go-around.

I know that this is an unfashionable view, but I have long believed that the saga of Charles and Camilla is the love story of our times. Theirs is the commitment that has stood the test of time, taking on vicious attacks in the media and the derision and anger of the British public to emerge bloodied but unbowed. And you only have to look at the relaxed body language of the Prince and see how he lights up in the presence of his ‘darling wife’, to know that he is finally in the kind of supportive and loving relationship that he always craved.

But what I like most about the images of Charles and Camilla on their Indian adventure is how they tell us is that even if you screw up big-time the first time round, you are not fated to eternal loneliness. Their shining faces and brilliant smiles teach us that it is possible to find happiness the second time round.

Second marriages have, of late, become a hot topic of discussion in India, not least because of that now-famous Tanishq ad which features a single mother getting married again (Is she single? Is she widowed? Is she divorced? The answer to all these questions is: Who cares? Or even: How does it matter?) I have to confess that it left me touched and a little teary-eyed. Yes, I know it is cheesy (“Aaj sey Daddy bulaoon?” asks the young daughter) and designed to tug at your heartstrings. But it is moving for all that, with its promise of new beginnings and a brand-new love story.

As far as I am concerned, the cynics can carp all they want about second marriages being a triumph of hope over experience. But sometimes – actually most times – hope is all you need when it comes with lavish lashings of love.

The Baby Belly

Why is it even considered worthy of comment?

Like much of the world, I allowed myself to get caught up in all that Royal Baby madness. So, along with millions of others, I was watching television to see Prince William and Catherine (no, she does not want to be called Kate), Duchess of Cambridge, emerge from the hospital, cradling their new-born son in their arms. The freshly-minted parents were beaming with pride and joy – as you do when you have just met your first born – and the mother looked absolutely radiant, glowing with good health and happiness, her hair professionally styled to its usual Middleton-swishiness.

Imagine my surprise then when the media decided to ignore her ear-to-ear smile, her sparkling eyes, and yes, that amazing blow-dry, to focus attention on what they called her ‘baby belly’, that discreet little bump around her waist where she had carried the Prince of Cambridge to term. Social forums like Netmums were delirious with delight that Catherine had chosen this moment to make a point for new mums everywhere: that this was what a post-birth body looked like, and there was no shame or embarrassment in showing it off. In those minutes, as she stood before the gates of Lindo Wing and showed off her baby son as well as her baby belly, she had made millions of women feel better about their own mummy tummys.

Well, if that’s what the Duchess intended to do, full marks to her. But frankly, what amazes – even angers – me is that this is a story at all. Why do we allow society to hardwire these unrealistic images of how a woman’s body should look into our brains, so much so that we are astonished and astounded when we see a new mother put her ‘real’ figure on display?

Here’s a news flash for all you body fascists out there. A woman’s body is not a rubber band (yes, really!). It doesn’t snap back into shape like elastic the moment she has pushed out an 8-pound person out of herself. The uterus take a couple of weeks to subside to its normal size, and the abdominal muscles that have been stretched over nine months, take time to settle down as well. So, it is completely natural for a woman who has given birth to still look, well, pregnant. Call it a baby belly or whatever the heck you want, but that is what every woman’s body looks like after she has squeezed out a brand-new human being out of her.

And yet, we never see these images of post-partum mums in the media, which would give women a realistic idea of what to expect when they are expecting (and after). Instead, we are inundated with pictures of celebrities like Victoria Beckam, who seems to emerge from the birthing suite wearing skinny jeans that show off her impossibly-tiny waist. Or even supermodels like Gisele Bundchen, who showed off her washboard abs in a bikini for a Vogue cover, a mere two months after giving birth. There’s nothing quite like seeing these amazing post-baby figures to make ‘normal’ new mothers feel awful about their bodies and themselves.

Small wonder then, that these days most famous women appear leery of exposing their real selves to the camera soon after giving birth, waiting a couple of months for the baby belly to disappear. And if they do have to make public appearances, they wear loose, flowing dresses so that nobody notices the mummy tummy below.

Even Catherine’s mother-in-law, Princess Diana, emerged from the hospital carrying William, while wearing a tent-like smock, beneath which it was impossible to ascertain her exact shape. So, I guess it was a brave choice for the Duchess to wear a custom-made Jenny Packham dress which was belted just below her bust, drawing attention to the post-baby bump below. And given how intensely she controls her own image, it wasn’t just a happy accident that the dress was designed to draw attention to her gently-swelling stomach.

But however comfortable Catherine may be about her baby belly, not everyone was willing to let the matter rest. The day after Catherine gave birth, the ever-enterprising folk at OK magazine put out a new Royal baby issue with the Duchess on the cover. The headline read “Kate’s post-baby weight loss regime” and went on to add, reassuringly, “She’s super-fit; her stomach will shrink right back”.

The sub-text was all too clear. Now that the sprog’s out, it’s time to hit the gym and regain that waist, Kate. There’s no excuse for looking pregnant even after you’ve given birth. So, get on the treadmill, woman, and don’t spare the crunches.

But, hearteningly, what was even clearer, was the backlash. Social media was abuzz with women (and some men, for good measure) pillorying OK for its cover. British television presenter, Katy Hill, spearheaded a Twitter campaign with the hashtag #dontbuyok, and even tweeted a picture of her own ‘baby belly’ for good measure. OK hastily backtracked and apologized profusely for its so-not-OK coverage.

For me, it brought back memories of all the flak Aishwarya Rai had to endure for her post-baby weight. And how different things could have been if we, in the Indian media, had also launched a campaign to force the bullies off her back. It would have been a lesson for new moms everywhere that it was more important to lose yourself in your new baby than lose that old baby weight.