Princess Diana versus Michael Fagan

 It seems 'The Crown' has created a renewed interest in the life (and death) of Princess Diana, most of which is relevant due to her ill-fated marriage to Prince Charles. People just cannot stop talking about the unfairness of the treatment she received in the Palace, how inconceivable it is that someone could choose a woman like Camilla Parker Bowles over her (I mean, of course nobody understands why a man would love an older, educated woman over a teenager), how the royal family killed her warm heart with its coldness, how she never deserved her fate, and on and on it goes.

Meanwhile, 'The Crown' also has a compelling episode about Michael Fagan, a man who broke into the Queen's chambers in the Buckingham palace in 1982. Margaret Thatcher's economic and foreign policies had reduced public spending to such an extent that unemployment levels rose to unprecedent levels, and Michael Fagan, a painter-decorator, was caught in the crosshairs of decisions he'd never made. "People don't have money to buy or build homes that I could then paint," says the working-class professional to a local government representative. He is unable to be a provider, which affects his mental health, and as a consequence he loses his wife and children who, to be fair, were in a difficult situation as well and were merely trying to make ends meet. Over and over, he is told that he has 'mental problems.' He doesn't, he insists, he's just poor. Given the way he says it, and the lengths to which he goes to make his voice heard upon knowing that Queen Elizabeth would be the only one higher up than the Prime Minister who could hear him, you know that he's right. You know that Michael Fagan would have been a completely different person if he only had--and I put this bluntly--lots of money.

But the person people care about is Diana. Because Diana was a celebrity, beautiful and rich and capable of garnering praise for things that many ordinary people did on a daily basis. Diana existed a long time ago, before we were singing songs for healthcare workers and calling out celebrities for singing 'Imagine' at the worst time imaginable. At the time, a woman like her 'deigned' to be good and upstanding; it was an unnecessary choice she was making, particularly unnecessary given her youth and beauty, and so, she was sparked love and worship in the hearts of many. Her marriage, her divorce, the issues in her personal life, the unfairness she was dealt with--people will continue to speak of these for decades to come.

But what about people like Michael Fagan? Normal people whose marriages broke down despite their best efforts? People who had to live under rules laid down by others and suffered as a consequence? People like you and me who remain burdened by everyday life, most of which is a collection of factors we did not ask for? Why is it nobody sees the tragedy in the personal life of Michael Fagan? People go on and on about how Princess Diana couldn't bear to be separated from her precious prince for two weeks, but what about the millions of parents that get separated from their children every day due to brutal economics? On 'The Crown,' Princess Diana cries and wails over not being able to leave her child with a nanny for two weeks to fulfill her royal duties, the same duties that elevate her and her children from being above average looking regular human beings to 'important people,' and people go gaga over how good of a mother she is. Meanwhile, women from impoverished countries or backgrounds have to leave their children just to feed them, and we accept it as 'just life' Some of them don't even get to witness their children grow up because they are busy making sure their children do, in fact, grow up. (And don't get me started with the 'if they are poor they should not have children.' As Indians, many of our forefathers, including our grandparents, were dirt poor, and we are not. Things change, and it is often worth investing in the future).

I think our response to the two characters on 'The Crown' reveals a fundamental flaw in human beings. For us, there will always be 'important' people and 'unimportant' people. 'Important' people will be rewarded for airing out their private lives in public. "Look how vulnerable they are being!" people will say, or "Look how she is creating awareness about (insert problem)!" Regular people will never get that privilege. People have been talking about Diana for decades, whereas people lose patience with their friends if they talk about the dissolution of their relationships for more than two weeks. I mean, it would be different if people did not give importance to celebrities either, but clearly, that's not the case. Maybe this is why we have created this love-hate relationship with social media. For all its downsides, it is a strange place where we get to act like 'important' people, to tell our 'stories,' to act as if our chosen causes should matter, to create a persona that seems more important than our averageness that captures the attention of only a few people. It's difficult to say. For now, I guess I will have to accept that most of us are 'unimportant' people and live our lives accordingly.

3Umme Hani, Sudeshna Kumar and 1 other