The dilemma of extinct royals and aristocrats of Asia

by Padma EDIRISINGHE

King Sri Wickrema Rajasinghe

A simplified and direct narrative of what happened in the early decades of 19th century Lanka could run as follows. "The last king of Lanka who fled the capital of Mahanuwara to escape an enraged crowd was later located in a house at Meda Mahanuwara and along with his queens was deported to Vellore, in the ship Cornwallis. The king is said to have sung a set of verses before departure or later somebody else had sung them for him. His throne and footstool and crown were shipped to England. The flag of the nation too was shipped and bundled up and forgotten in, out of all places, in a hospital till a patriot about 100 years later found it and made a copy of it to be hoisted at national functions. Valuable possessions of the conquered race too were shipped and sold at London auctions amidst Ahs and Ooohs at the fabulous display, a few sniggers erupting at the exhibited Manimekhala, the jewelled underwear of the queens."

That was the rude and very un-gallant dismissal of a 2500-year-old monarchy line, one of the oldest in the world. Very simple as that. And what about the attitude towards royalty of the nation that perpetrated this blatant disregard to the royalty of another nation? Anti royalist? Far from it.. They are just obsessed with it. Most recent evidence - Newspapers of her one-time colonies ape those of the ex-master race by daily carrying some "Sensational news" about the impending royal wedding. Bets are said to be placed as to who would sew the bridal trousseau and London's hotels are already said to be booked for gaping on-lookers of the wedding procession. Whole country is just going mad.

In my random readings I came across the following comments by one Singh on this subject.. "The West is obsessed with their royalty. The British are obsessed with their royalty.

We are no different". This Indian writes.. "People love the idea of royalty. We have not lost that despite Marxism and leftism and everything else that India has gone through". Why did I quote Singh? I, a Singhe myself, could have written that but a second voice strengthens the opinion.

What is this about royalty and aristocracy that almost go hand in hand? One strengthens the other. Or one dies along with the other. No. They do not die off completely. They live on, in revered memory despite many a bloody act performed by members of these two tribes. It is safer for me to first dwell on what has happened in the neighbouring country.

Here I again have recourse to the article that encases that quotation. The writer seems to be in a similar quandary as regards the subject.. And of course, the social set ups of these two countries are not very different... Of course, one is about 63 times larger than the other and the number of aristocrats in the larger country are naturally many times as larger. In the particular article, the writer deals with an aristocrat who once served a Mogul Emperor.

Today their one-time Palace in Lucknow is inhabited by two white haired brothers both still laying claims to a kingdom that had got extinct a 150 years ago! Over the course of years the family gathered much fame and fortune, that is during the Mogul emperor's days. Now the grand palace is crumbling along with the egos of its inhabitants and their kinsmen who have started bickering. They are all claiming to the Title of the Nawab of Awadh, a second king or Deveni Rajjouruwo to the Emperor!

Says another claimant:

"I think he is obsessed. Once you realize you are not the Nawab and the whole town knows that you are not, even then you want it. Isn't that an obsession?" Much more. It is sheer madness. Just running after a grandiose illusion.

The throne of the last king

A good part of descendants of these aristocratic families who ruled over vast areas have disowned their robes and bejewelled crowns and now "degraded" themselves to follow careers for sheer sustenance... One of the Nawab family descendants is today a salesman of medical equipment, yet not giving up, still maintains his aspirations to the lost throne! He accuses the other aspirants of "megalomania" while he himself suffers from it. In fact, many of these descendants seem to suffer from it.

Goes on the writer, "Their 15-year-old feud (over a long extinct crown) famed for its poets and artists has become a matter for newspaper reporters and an ever watching public and is a reflection of India's deeply ambivalent relationship with its bewildering array of royalty, semi-royalty and lesser aristocrats".

He goes on to deliver a paradoxical statement.

"If these aristocrats do not matter at all in modern India, they also matter very much".

Singh pipes in this line:

"Royalty is a very complex thing in this country. What is modern? What is feudal? I think India is a mixture of all these".

India's aristocratic families were stripped of their political power at the Independence granted in 1947 and of their feudal holdings five years later. In 1970 they lost their Government allowances and legal rights to their titles. But yet they are nostalgic about their lost position and power and wish to redeem them.

But can you compare what happened to our aristocracy with what happened to the aristocracy in India under the boots of Britain? India has been a confusing patchwork of 565 kingdoms ruled by royals famed for their riches and ostentatious spending.

This particular Nawab family had controlled 996 villages that were taken away in the 1950s. "We had to sell our heirloom jewellery and whatever land we had left. But we had to keep up a life style since we were still being looked up to".

There lies the complexity or the dilemma. Many aristocrats have fallen on adverse times going from one job interview to another. But for those willing to trade on their noble roots so many new ways have sprung up on their claims to royalty and aristocracy.

"Dozens of politicians have won their elections based on aristocratic pedigrees. Royals, whether they use their title or not, can be found in corporate boardrooms... there are aristocratic university professors and aristocratic journalists".

They are also not doing bad as regards their one-time princely habitats. The more enterprising have turned them into luxury hotels drawing heaps of dollars. The very name of the owner brings in guests sometimes. Finally, "people just love royalty and aristocracy " despite the growing knowledge that they are nothing but a set of humans who via craftiness and intellect and unflagging perseverance and good luck began to loom over the less lucky ones.. The catchwords of "High birth" and "Noble parentage" further egged them on.. Just random thoughts on the dilemma of fallen royals and fallen aristocrats....