Latest news with #RadhikarajeGaekwad
Mint
2 days ago
- Entertainment
- Mint
Radhikaraje Gaekwad stuns in century-old Paithani sari at Naad couture showcase
New Delhi [India], August 8 (ANI): The erstwhile Maharani of Baroda, Radhikaraje Gaekwad, took the centre-stage wearing a 100-year-old nine-yard Paithani sari at 'NAAD - The Sound of the Looms', a retrospective couture showcase by Vaishali Shadangule. Radhikaraje Gaekwad was the epitome of grace, and her outfit left an indelible mark on the evening. She dazzled in a traditional and century-old heirloom sari along with a blouse designed by Vaishali, that beautifully blended regal elegance with contemporary flair. Her attire was a nod to Baroda's royal heritage. The Paithani are known for its intricate designs and vibrant colours. Speaking to ANI, Radhikaraje Gaekwad talked about the traditional craft and how it can be preserved with changing time and demand, "I think the beauty of craft is that it is classic, it can adapt to any fashion because it has been timeless for so many centuries that you just have to give it your personality, it is completely malleable and the fact that it has endured for so many centuries is that everyone has adapted it to their own personality and I think somewhere we need to reconnect with that and give it our own flavour, our own, like our mix match something old and new. So, I am wearing a blouse by Vaishali, and my saree is about 100 years old, so it is about marrying the old and new and giving it your own twist." As the country celebrated the 11th National Handloom Day on Thursday, Vaishali Shadangule, a couturier, showcased 52 couture looks, celebrating the rich heritage of Indian handlooms and paying an ode to the weavers, in collaboration with the Ministry of Textiles, Government of India, and the Development Commissioner for Handlooms (DCHL). Be it the beautiful Banarasi sari, Chanderi, Jamdani, Paithani, or Maheshwari, each look was a celebration of Indian handwoven textiles. Since 2001, Vaishali's label has promoted artisanal handloom and supported weaving families in India. While talking about her collection and bringing the craft from different states during the couture showcase, Vaishali said, "I am working with seven different states.. like so many weaves are there, it was like I wanted to do marriage of all the weaves because of course, it's a celebration, National Handloom Day and that was the effort and that's why name was Naad, which is sound of loom and we wanted to see weavers weaving there and, listen that pure sound of loom, that's how I started my show." M Beena, Development Commissioner for Handlooms (DCHL) within the Ministry of Textiles, shared the idea behind the show, saying, "Together, we have crafted a unique experience. We showcased the best in handlooms in this sector. The rationale for the Ministry to do something like this is while our handloom traditions are rich and robust and have a lot of importance in terms of economic empowerment. We have around 35 lakh plus weavers and workers in this sector. 72% of whom are women. So, it is a sector of a lot of importance to us, and it is essential that this sector and our handloom weavers really reach out to a very large audience at the international level. And for that, you know, the marriage of tradition with fashion is very important and that was the thinking behind this show. " She added, "What we now need to focus on is adapting handloom traditions to make them marketable in today's evolving global landscape. Significant attention is being given to handloom exports, and it is crucial that we work closely with our weavers so that their designs and materials meet the standards required to capture niche international markets. Today's fashion showcase by Vaishali Shadangule is a step in that direction. It illustrates the potential of Indian handloom to shine on the global stage; it is a powerful depiction of how far this sector can go." Apart from the beautiful showcase of the weaves, what grabbed the eyeballs was three expressive dance performances by dancers from Coimbatore, which captured the lifecycle of a handloom creation. (ANI)
India.com
3 days ago
- Business
- India.com
Meet woman who lives in largest residence in the world, bigger than Buckingham Palace, Mukesh Ambani's Rs 15000 crore Antilia, she is...
Whenever we talk about the world's most expensive and largest private residences, one name that almost always comes up is Mukesh Ambani, chairman of Reliance Industries. He is one of the richest people in the world. His home in Mumbai, Antilia, is more than just a house; it is an extravagant symbol of wealth, luxury, and architectural achievement. However, there is one woman who lives in the largest residence in the world, it is bigger than Buckingham Palace, Mukesh Ambani's Rs 15000 crore Antilia, her name is… She is Maharani Radhikaraje Gaekwad, wife of Maharaja Samarjitsinh Gaekwad of Baroda. Radhikaraje Gaekwad's husband, Samarjitsinh Ranjitsinh Gaekwad, is a former cricketer and cricket administrator who previously played at the Ranji Trophy level for his state. He comes from royal lineage, as the Gaekwads have ruled Baroda since around 1700. He became the heir to the title following the death of his father, Maharaja Ranjitsinh Pratapsinh Gaekwad, and he assumed the title of Maharaja of Baroda in 2012 in a traditional ceremony at the Laxmi Vilas Palace. In 2002, Radhikaraje Gaekwad's life took a royal turn when she married Maharaja Samarjitsinh Gaekwad of Baroda. Together, they have two daughters, Princess Padmajaraje and Princess Narayaniraje. The family resides in the grand Laxmi Vilas Palace, a breathtaking symbol of Baroda's regal heritage. Spanning 600 acres, the palace combines royal splendor with modern elements, with parts open to the public, offering a unique opportunity to explore its rich history.
Time of India
31-07-2025
- Entertainment
- Time of India
‘Urja' exhibition to showcase Indian handicrafts
Vadodara: Over 28 artisans and 30 designers from across the country will participate in the two-day 'Urja' exhibition, organized by the Shree Maharani Chimnabai Stree Udyogalaya (SMCSU). Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The event will begin on Saturday at the Laxmi Vilas Palace Banquet, showcasing Indian handicrafts, handlooms, and traditional products. "The idea is to promote artisans from different states and preserve unique art forms. Through Urja, we aim to bring artisans and designers together to collaborate," said Radhikaraje Gaekwad, vice-president of SMCSU and a member of the royal Gaekwad family. Artists from Gujarat, Maharashtra, West Bengal, Karnataka, Ladakh, Telangana and seven other states will display their work. "Since its inception in 2021, the exhibition has grown rapidly, attracting more artisans each year. Our goal is to create a sustainable market for traditional crafts and instill pride among artisans," Gaekwad said. She added that the venue was shifted to the LVP banquet this year to accommodate the rising footfall.
News18
05-06-2025
- Entertainment
- News18
When A Maharani Regally Reminds About Real Vs Reel Royals
Last Updated: Radhikaraje Gaekwad's wry but succinct observations about real vs reel royals point to a common flaw: lack of domain knowledge about them The Royals, the Netflix version, that is, has elicited an elegant and timely repartee from a 'real' maharani about what bona fide royals were and are. Radhikaraje Gaekwad, wife of the 'Maharaja' of the erstwhile princely state of Baroda (and daughter of a 'maharajkumar' of Wankaner) ended her riposte with, 'Yet after all these decades, our country continues to view us—all 565 families and a few thousand nobility—with an odd mixture of awe, ignorance and distaste." Spot on! Indeed, the only redeeming feature of Netflix's version of royals is Ishan Khattar as Aviraaj Singh, 'Maharaja' of the fictional Morpur. Even his nickname Fizzy is what seasoned royal watchers might consider a clever inclusion because it not only encapsulates his effervescent on-screen persona but also harks back to 'Bubbles', the late Maharaja of Jaipur Brigadier Bhawani Singh, whose flamboyant young grandson Padmanabh ('Pacho') Singh is the current 'ruler'. But the rest of the series is a mishmash of what Bollywood thinks the lives of Indian royals are—or were. It's as if the writer(s) pored over back-issues of Hello! and Marwar to cobble together a storyline for a couture and interiors promo. Sadly, while it was filmed in 'real' palaces, The Royals' clothes, ceremonial or while partying (apparently their sole occupation) were hardly aristocratic—Abu-Sandeep at best. And SoBo English did not make them to the mahal born. Even so, this series offers a good reason to take a proper look at the progress of Indian royalty in democratic India in the past eight decades. Cinema in socialist India immortalised the trope of wicked, licentious feudal rajas, taluqdars and zamindars living off the sweat and tears of their suffering praja (subjects), taking advantage of poor women and spending lavish amounts on hunting, gambling, alcohol and any other debauched habit that screenwriters could conjure up. Now, with being rich becoming cool again in post-socialist, liberalised India, feudal scions are shown in fast cars with arm candy or flaunting gowns and jewels, albeit more in society and fashion magazines rather than on the silver screen. One point that the Netflix series gets right—but only superficially—is that many an Indian royal family is on skid row, and live sham lives of grandeur. Unfortunately, the plot is too thin to present a credible picture of their existential dilemma. For the uninitiated, despite India no longer recognising royal titles they flourish in private and tourist circles, especially in the latter as they validate 'royal hospitality' premium rates. Radhikaraje has painted a very saintly picture of our princely states' life under the British and then their accession to independent Bharat that Sardar Patel may have a few quibbles about, but overall she makes a valid point: they all work hard now, not rest on their, well, crown jewels. So, the life portrayed in The Royals is not true-to-life, even if it isn't meant to be a documentary, but a rom(p)-com about a playboy prince and a self-made hospitality industry diva. Even so, a modicum of understanding of royal protocol and relationships beyond 'khama-gani' and 'hukum', gaudily embellished mahals, bowing and scraping mustachioed-and-turbaned retainers, not to mention polo matches, racing cars and fashion shows, would have been welcome. Indian royals foraying into the hospitality sector with their palaces (in varying stages of grandeur and decay) leveraging the aura of their glittery past was a story that began in earnest soon after liberalisation. Three decades on, there is hardly a fort, palace, shikargah, haveli, villa or even cottage with royal links that have not become hotels, some with the former feudal owners still in residence, but most with professional managements who adroitly heighten the 'royal" experience. So the plot of The Royals—a hospitality professional seeks to turn a princely pile into a hotel where 'commoners" can have a taste of regal life in the midst of actual royals—is hardly new or earth-shattering. Equally clichéd is young Fizzy Morpur swanning around New York having affairs or modelling bare chested in some sunny and sandy locale. While some may think they know who Khattar's Aviraaj is based on, rich and reckless playboy princes simply don't exist anymore. Heirs to one-pistol salute 'states' like Morpur could not afford such layabout lives. Most scions of actual former princely states have pretty mundane day jobs now—tourism, marketing, politics—even if they do get to trot out the family regalia, swords and horse-drawn carriages for marriages and funerals. Very unlike a century ago when Indian 'rulers" (real power was mostly vested in the hands of their official British 'residents') and their excesses were the stuff of legend. From the late 19th century till 1947, the world's top couturiers, jewellers, vintners and carmakers beat a path to their palace doors to seek their custom. Though these rulers were cleverly called 'princes' and only had 'HH' or His Highness prefixed to their names rather than His Majesty—thereby keeping them below the British Royal Family and other European monarchies in the blue-blooded pecking order—maharajas paid a king's ransom to procure the world's finest goods. Today, our de-recognised royals are at best brand ambassadors for the world's top labels. They are not sitting in the front rows of international fashion shows as coveted customers, they are more likely to auction their baubles than bid for some at Christie's, and they are no longer the world's biggest buyers of premier cru wines and vintage champagnes. Many of them do still, however, wear their inherited gem-studded kalgis, necklaces and bracelets with rare elegance. That regal elegance is hard to replicate, and The Royals fails miserably on that count, no matter how reputed their stylist/costume designer. No maharani worth her French chiffons and graded Basra pearls today would wear what The Royals' widowed queen and queen mother do. Radhikaraje, always a picture of elan in traditional weaves, is not the only one who cringed royally. Only the royal brothers Aviraaj and Digvijay in their side-strapped trousers looked authentic. A more ineffable yet crucial aspect of real royals is their protocol and bearing, which is not about swagger or walking around stiff-necked. Anyone who knows Indian royals would vouch that most of them have an innate old-world grace and courtesy—a sadly misunderstood word these days. There's something about their carriage and manners that sets most of them apart. Caricaturing is easier than accurate portrayal and The Royals' writers, unfortunately, get neither right. For anyone familiar with the protocol of India's royals, especially Rajputs from Rajasthan and affiliated families, the consistent use of the word 'Maharaj-ji' to refer to Aviraaj and his father is especially jarring. In royalspeak, the titleholder is Maharaja. Maharaj (without the 'a') is what all the younger brothers of the king are called, short for Maharajkumar. So The Royals' Digvijay is Maharaj(kumar) while Aviraaj is Maharaja. And his mother would be Rajmata, not Rani-sa. Maharaja, Maharani, Maharajkumar, Maharajkumari, Raja, Rani, Yuvraj, Yuvrani, Rajkumar, Rajkumari, Baijilal, Rao Raja, Rao Rani, Kanwar, Bhanwar, Pattayet, Pattayet Rani, Tikka Raja, Bapji, Shriji and more—royal prefixes and honorifics are varied, but very specific and hierarchical. Even though none of these titles are officially recognised anymore, they are actually an article of faith in royal circles and cannot be used at will interchangeably or bandied about. Earlier films on Indian royals delved into 'history": Jodha-Akbar, Bajirao Mastani etc. Only Zubeida, Khalid Mohammed's take on his mother, Jodhpur Maharaja Hanwant Singh's second wife, was on a recent person. Manoj Bajpai as Hanwant was more Hindi heartland than Rajputana, but Karishma Kapoor as a Gayatri-Devi-like Zubeida and Rekha as the older first wife looked and sounded more authentic than Sakshi Tanwar and Zeenat Aman as Aviraaj's mother and grandma. top videos View all In Zubeida's case, Khalid Mohammed's personal knowledge perhaps ensured a higher degree of authenticity at least in the appearance and manner of the royal protagonists, even if the script deviated often from what really happened. The Royals is totally a fictitious tale and hence should have been far easier to conceptualise. But the obvious lack of domain knowledge on a small but well-defined segment—Indian royalty and nobility—makes Maharani Radhikaraje's words ring so true. The author is a freelance writer. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18's views. tags : Bhumi Pednekar Ishan Khattar Netflix The Royals Location : New Delhi, India, India First Published: June 05, 2025, 14:14 IST News opinion Opinion | When A Maharani Regally Reminds About Real Vs Reel Royals
Time of India
05-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Time of India
The depiction of Indian royalty in popular media continues to be off the mark: Radhikaraje Gaekwad
Radhikaraje Gaekwad I don't want to talk too much about The Royals. All I will say is that the show is not at all well-researched. The onscreen depiction of royalty in India has been off the mark all the time, and the depiction (of Indian royalty) in popular media continues to be off the mark. Too much importance is always given to decadent lifestyles and profligacy. It feels as if royal families are living only in the past-that's the kind of general overview that all of them (movies and shows) have. It's as if royals are just squandering away wealth and not doing anything at all. There is nothing covering royalty as it is today. These portrayals are not at all realistic. The west has always been fascinated about Indian royalty-the lifestyle and riches. Unfortunately, that has become the overarching story of royalty. If you look at a show like Downton Abbey, apart from talking about the privileges, it also highlights the challenges of being royalty in today's times. However, the onscreen portrayals of royalty in India only talk about the exploitation of legacy. In reality, a lot of royal family members are going back to their roots and working with communities. This has been a politically motivated narrative right from the time of independence. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Felixstowe: If You Were Born Between 1940-1975 You Could Be Eligible For This Life Cover Reassured Get Quote Undo The 'real' royals are making a difference, including several ladies of the house. There are so many examples. Princess Brijeshwari Kumari Gohil of Bhavnagar is working at the grassroots, doing exemplary work to restore and retain the heritage of Bhavnagar. Princess Vaishnavi Kumari of Kishangarh is playing a key role in reviving art, while Princess Gauravi Kumari of Jaipur is also doing exemplary work with the Princess Diya Kumari Foundation. Many of them have studied abroad and come back to work at the grassroots. Everyone has a great sense of responsibility and pride for their roots. They are taking care of it because nobody else can do it. We rarely talk about the contribution of royalty. My father, MK Dr Ranjitsinh Jhala (author, conservationist, and former IAS officer), was one of the earliest royal family members to give up a comfortable life and work as a government servant. We only hear about the jewels of Jam Saheb, but nobody talks about the exquisite cricketer that Ranjitsinhji was, or about his contribution in putting cricket on the map of India, organising cricket camps in Jamnagar etc. Even today, our most prestigious domestic cricket tournament (Ranji Trophy) is named after him. It did not suit the political class to talk about the contribution of royalty, what they did for the people. I am happy that my daughter Padmajaraje has started young and she is doing social work at Shri Maharani Chimnabai Stree Udyogalaya, donating over 8,000 footwear to the needy so far. The narrative of how Indian royalty aligned with the British and exploited the subjects-this has been a very systematic, thought-out narrative, to club colonialism and royalty in one bracket. There's no doubt there were alliances and associations with the British. However, how politics and diplomacy work is complex. If I talk about Baroda, it maintained decorum with the British to run the state without hindrance, even if the royals did not like it at a personal level. One has to understand that the royals were not there just for decorative purposes, they had to run the administration too. We only see what the media has shown us, but people don't understand the complexity of the situation. Also, royal families have never spoken up about themselves. Creating this stereotype about royalty always suited the political class. In reality, states had to engage with the British to run their kingdom. For centuries of royalty, there will be some incompetent, decadent people ('bad royal apples'). But states were run by royals for 400-500 years. To say how a large part of the country was run for hundreds of years and the entire royalty of India was rubbish-that is really overstating it. The perception will change only if history is documented more evenly. It's also up to us (royals) to document our own history because nobody has collated what different states did in their tenure. More awareness needs to be created and it's important for people to put their authentic stories out there. One has to be prepared for backlash too. After my recent post, there was a backlash in the comments section. It's because a particular mindset has been created for so many years about royalty. I am optimistic about the Museum of Royal Kingdoms (near the Statue of Unity, which will depict the history of India's erstwhile kingdoms). We need such spaces that may be able to tell stories of Indian royalty more sensitively and authentically. I must say that the government is making an effort. For this museum, the team has got in touch with royal families for their documented history. I hope it comes out the way one expects it to. ( Radhikaraje Gaekwad is a member of the Baroda royal family, and trustee and vice president, Shri Maharani Chimnabai Stree Udyogalaya (MCSU), which has been empowering women and marginalised communities) -As told to Soumitra Das One step to a healthier you—join Times Health+ Yoga and feel the change
