Junk history is embodied perfectly in a recent viral meme that portrays a nineteenth-century Persian princess with facial hair alongside the claim that 13 men killed themselves over their unrequited love for her. While it fails miserably at historical accuracy, the meme succeeds at demonstrating how easily viral clickbait obscures and overshadows rich and meaningful stories from the past.

By Victoria Martínez

Not everybody has been convinced over the “Princess Qajar” meme, which claims that this Persian princess with an apparent mustache was considered an ideal beauty in her day and that “13 young men killed themselves because she rejected” them. Framed in this way, it’s unsurprising that few have expressed their doubts based on the lack of sources or citations of any kind, focusing instead on the princess’ appearance.

47072838

Princess Fatemeh Khanum “’Esmat al-Dowleh” (1855/6-1905). Inscribed: “Khanum ʻIsmat al-Dawlah daughter of Nasir al-Din Shah, wife of Dust Muhammad Khan Muʻayyir al-Mamlik,” and dated mid/late 19th century. Part of the collection of the Institute for Iranian Contemporary Historical Studies (ع 3-5216). Courtesy Women’s Worlds in Qajar Iran. This is the image that features in the junk history meme.

This is, of course, exactly the kind of reaction desired when creating a meme in the hope it will go viral. Facts and sources be damned, even if it comes from a so-called “educational/history” page. They won’t make it go viral like sensational claims that bank on internalized misogyny and blinkered concepts of beauty.

51389331

Princess Zahra Khanum “Taj al-Saltaneh” (1884-1936). The 12th daughter of Nasar al-Din Shah Qajar, and half-sister of ‘Esmat. Dated 1909 or 1910, by Ivanov (Roussie-Khan). Courtesy Women’s Worlds in Qajar Iran. Taj is sometimes suggested as the “real Princess Qajar” in response to the ambiguous and misleading meme.

Then there’s the sad truth that few will bother to check the facts for themselves. Those who do often run up against similar misleading factoids, creating a jumble of confusing and unreliable junk history that obscures good sources and information. For instance, well-meaning individuals commenting on this meme are often quick to claim that the subject in the photo is a male actor portraying the princess. Others go further and state that not only is it an actor, but the portrayal was done to ridicule the princess, whose “real” picture they include in the comments. Neither claim is accurate.

The historical reality of this junk history meme is, like all history, complex, and deeply rooted in a period of great change in Persian history that involved issues like reform, nationalism and women’s rights. At its core, however, is a story of not one, but two, Persian princesses who both defined and defied the standards and expectations set for women of their time and place. Neither one, incidentally, was named “Princess Qajar,” though they were both princesses of the Persian Qajar dynasty.

The primary figure in this history is Princess Fatemeh Khanum “‘Esmat al-Dowleh[1] (1855/6-1905), a daughter of Nasar al-Din Shah Qajar (1831-1896), King of Persia from 1848-1896, and one of his wives, Taj al-Dowleh. The photograph circulating is indeed ‘Esmat, not an actor, and was taken by her husband circa the mid- to late-19th century. This information alone, readily available online and in print, contradicts the claim that ‘Esmat was “the ultimate symbol of beauty… in the early 1900s.” Since the photo of ‘Esmat was taken years before then, and she died in 1905, it’s a stretch to make her an icon of a period she barely graced.

The only part of the meme that has a grain of truth to it is that there was indeed a period in Persian history when ‘Esmat’s appearance – namely, her “mustache” – was considered beautiful. According to Harvard University professor Dr. Afsaneh Najmabadi, “Many Persian-language sources, as well as photographs, from the nineteenth century confirm that Qajar women sported a thin mustache, or more accurately a soft down, as a sign of beauty.”[2] But, as Dr. Najmabadi clearly points out, this concept of beauty was at its height in the 19th century. In other words, the 1800s, not the 1900s, as the meme claims.

36701808

A painting of ‘Esmat (painter unknown) in the Bahman Bayani Collection. Courtesy Women’s Worlds in Qajar Iran.

‘Esmat, a product of her time, place and status, was no exception. In Dr. Najmabadi’s book, Women with Mustaches and Men without Beards: Gender and Sexual Anxieties of Iranian Modernity, she relates an anecdote of a Belgian woman’s encounter with ‘Esmat at the Persian court in 1877: “In her description of ‘Ismat al-Dawlah, Serena observed that ‘over her upper lips she had soft down of a mustache which gave her a manly look.’”[3] This does not mean, however, that ‘Esmat stood out as a symbol of this type of beauty. In fact, as will be addressed, her image may have held far greater power.

Unfortunately, not only does the “Princess Qajar” meme boil down this deeply-nuanced element of cultural history into junk history clickbait, it also makes it worse by adding the sensational claim that thirteen men killed themselves over their unrequited love for her. Naturally, there is no source given to support this claim, which appears to be pulled from thin air. Were it true, it would seem like worthy material to include in even the shortest legitimate biographical information about ‘Esmat, but it doesn’t appear anywhere.

There are, however, at least two good reasons to disbelieve this claim. First, ‘Esmat was probably married when she was around nine or ten years old.[4] Second, the marriage was very likely arranged while she was living among the women of her father’s harem. It seems highly unlikely that she had the opportunity to meet any man not her relative, never mind beguile and reject thirteen suicidal lovers. Later, as a married woman in patriarchal Persia, it’s equally unlikely that she was being courted by amorous suitors.

It hardly seems necessary at this point to question the motivation of the meme’s creator in connecting such a dubious and sensational claim to this image. If it wasn’t already, it should be blindingly obvious that it has almost nothing to do with actual history, and everything to do with eliciting an overwhelming emotional response on social media. The fact that the means to the end was the exploitation of a woman’s appearance is hardly a surprise. That it is insidious and damaging, both to history in general and women’s history in particular, is beyond the shadow of a doubt.

The focus on historical women’s appearance without the benefit of context and analysis is, and always has been, a highly successful way to shift the narrative away from their accomplishments and diminish their impact on history. Whether or not ‘Esmat or any other woman was or is considered beautiful or not is of little consequence, which is why patriarchal history has focused so much on it. Starting and ending the conversation about a woman on the subject of her appearance almost guarantees that it will be all most people remember about her. In ‘Esmat’s case, keeping her anonymous by giving her the generic appellation, “Princess Qajar,” ensures that those who wish to know more will not have much to go by.

Not that the creator of the meme did any actual research to create the meme. That would have taken effort, skill, persistence, and an actual desire to preserve and perpetuate good history. Had they done so, there’s no question that the resulting meme wouldn’t have gotten the volume of response that makes a meme go viral. But it would have contained far more interesting information than what they have invented and/or distorted. They would have discovered, for instance, that ‘Esmat was one of the most photographed women at her father’s court, and it wasn’t because she conformed to contemporary ideals of beauty.

47072830

Three generations of royal Qajar women: ‘Esmat (center), her mother, and her daughter. The inscription reads: “Taj al-Dawlah wife of Nasir al-Din Shah, ʻIsmat al-Dawlah, Khanum Fakhr Taj.” Part of the collection of the Institute for Iranian Contemporary Historical Studies (ع 3-5215). Courtesy Women’s Worlds in Qajar Iran.

As the second daughter of Nasar al-Din Shah Qajar, ‘Esmat was trusted enough by her father that she was given the responsibility of serving as the host for female foreign guests to the court.[5] Against tradition, she learned to play the piano and became a photographer with a private studio in her home.[6] More significantly, there are instances of her using her influence with her father, such as when she convinced him to let her husband back into the country.[7] Like other royal women at her father’s court, ‘Esmat appeared to be a competent woman with a fair amount of agency.

In fact, the appearance of ‘Esmat and other women of the harem may have held a power far greater than that of merely attracting a multitude of suitors. Art historian Dr. Staci Gem Scheiwiller has argued that the large number of photographs of the women of Nasar al-Din Shah Qajar’s harem “had the ability to demonstrate a development of a female revolutionary consciousness.”[8] The sheer volume of photographs of ‘Esmat would have put her visually at the front and center of this social and cultural revolution.

At the literal front of it was the other princess of the Qajar dynasty who has been mistakenly associated with the unfortunate meme because of the vague “Princess Qajar” reference: Princess Zahra Khanum “Taj al-Saltaneh[9] (1884-1936). The 12th daughter of Nasar al-Din Shah Qajar, and half-sister of ‘Esmat, Taj was a feminist and a nationalist who supported a cultural and constitutional revolution in Persia.

42570484

A “Cabinet Portrait” of Taj al-Saltaneh, inscribed: “Taj al-Saltanah, daughter of the late Nasir al-Din Shah.” Part of the Private collection of Bahram Sheikholeslami. Courtesy Women’s Worlds in Qajar Iran. Some versions of the offending meme include this image as the generic “Princess Qajar,” rather than a distinct woman with her own name and identity.

According to Dr. Najmabadi, Taj “…articulated some of the most eloquent arguments put forward by women for unveiling as a first necessary step toward women’s participation in education, paid work, and progress of the nation.”[10] And Dr. Scheiwiller highlights a key passage from Taj’s published memoirs, Crowning Anguish: Memoirs of a Persian Princess from the Harem to Modernity 1884-1914: “When the day comes that I see my sex emancipated and my country on the path to progress, I will sacrifice myself in the battlefield of liberty, and freely shed my blood under the feet of my freedom-loving cohorts seeking their rights.”[11]

In their own time, ‘Esmat and Taj were not defined by their appearance. Their accomplishments were not the result of either setting or copying cultural standards of beauty. They were women of merit and substance whose stories deserve to be told and perpetuated in a respectful and meaningful way, not diminished and ridiculed.

In writing of the women of the Qajar court, like ‘Esmat and Taj, whose pictures hold so much historical meaning and significance, Dr. Scheiwiller poignantly wrote, “The photograph of oneself was able to transform one from being meaningless, whose story would not be told, to one of a face etched in time.”[12]

It would be a travesty to sit back and let a fatuous meme mar the true beauty and historical importance of these women and their images.

***

Main image credits: Cropped images of (left) “Khanum ʻIsmat al-Dawlah” circa mid/late 19th century from the collection of the Institute for Iranian Contemporary Historical Studies (ع 3-5216), and (right) a “Cabinet Portrait” of Taj al-Saltaneh from the private collection of Bahram Sheikholeslami. Both images courtesy of the Harvard University online database, Women’s Worlds in Qajar Iran.

[1] Sources include a variety of spellings for the Persian names. In Princess Fatemeh Khanum’s case, she is generally referred to ‘Esmat or ‘Ismat (both with and without the accent mark), and variations of her second name include ed-Dowleh and al-Dowlah.

[2] Najmabadi, Afsaneh. Women with Mustaches and Men without Beards: Gender and Sexual Anxieties of Iranian Modernity. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2005, 233.

[3] ibid 232

[4] Her husband was ten at the time of the marriage (see Women’s Worlds in Qajar Iran), and her sister, Taj al-Saltaneh married at the age of nine or ten (Women’s Worlds in Qajar Iran).

[5] See Women’s Worlds in Qajar Iran

[6] Scheiwiller, Staci Gem. Liminalities of Gender and Sexuality in Nineteenth-Century Iranian Photography: Desirous Bodies. (Routledge History of Photography). Oxford: Routledge, 2016, 69.

[7] Women’s Worlds in Qajar Iran

[8] Scheiwiller 73

[9] Also spelled al-Saltanah.

[10] Najmabadi 137

[11] Quoted in: Scheiwiller, Staci Gem. Photographing the Other Half of the Nation: Gendered Politics of the Royal Albums in 19th Century Iran. “The Photograph and the Album.” ed. Jonathan Carson et al. Edinburgh: MuseumsEtc, 2013, 64.

[12] ibid 65

 

Advertisements

Join the conversation! 123 Comments

  1. Thanks for this Victoria, I was looking for some facts behind the story of ‘Princess Qajar’ and found your blog. I particularly like your sentence: ‘The focus on historical women’s appearance without the benefit of context and analysis is, and always has been, a highly successful way to shift the narrative away from their accomplishments and diminish their impact on history.’ I would say it’s also happening right now. My main interest is music, and I’ve been arguing that female composers and musicians are mostly valued (by men and women) on how well they fit the expected stereotypes, i.e. are they ‘funky’, ‘soulful’, ‘sassy’, ‘divas’, etc etc. There’s nothing wrong with those things, but the women who take a different approach (and there are many) are largely ignored. This not only distorts our view of women in society (right now), but also distorts what music is and can be, for all of us.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply
  2. Very well done. Now here’s what everyone should do: search the historical sources and studies to know the actual facts that explain what in today’s society may seem simple but when placed in it’s historical context demonstrates much more complexity but at the same time, makes much more sense. Thank you for clarifying! Princess Esmat sounds like she was a very interesting woman and that has much more relevant things to be remembered for then just her mustache.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
  3. Excellent article. Can I ask for your permission to translate it into Dutch and publish it on my blog?

    Like

    Reply
  4. Amazing history…
    One should always research on facts, you learn more.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply
  5. Thank you so much for this! So interesting & important! I was a bit disturbed by the meme that was floating around FB (& surprised by who was sharing it) & I’m so pleased to read the real story 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
  6. I have previously skimmed over articles exploring historical events, as I always wrongly assumed it would not be interesting.

    Thank you for disproving my view. This article was incredibly interesting, and I’ve learned a little bit about a topic I may have previously skimmed past. So, thank you again.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
  7. About time. Thank you for posting.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
  8. Hello, I don’t know if you’re aware but there is a youtube video with 162,000 views that seems to have lifted it’s transcript wholesale from your blogpost. Your post is linked to, but it’s at the bottom of the description and the content is otherwise passed off as the video maker’s own work.

    Like

    Reply
    • I wasn’t aware of it. Thank you for letting me know!

      Like

      Reply
    • Hi again, Laura.

      I just wanted to provide an update and thank you again. After I notified YouTube that the video was an infringement of my copyright, the original video was pulled and the channel owner contacted me and apologized for what was apparently done by a writer without his knowledge. Appropriate changes to the video have been made and it is now back up with proper attribution.

      I am very grateful for what you did.

      Best regards,
      Victoria

      Like

      Reply
  9. Thank you for the blog Victoria.. I was always keen to know about her and suddenly found your blog today

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
  10. Hi!I wish it were the same as back in the day! When they saw a woman with extra weight men thought that was beautiful and not taboo!
    I think she is beautiful!

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
  11. thank you for this blog, victoria, I came here looking for the truth behind a whatsapp forward that sounded quite unlikely. I must say that I remain surprised that the qajar princesses did look that way- and by that I mean the fashion of those times !

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
  12. Loved the work you have done to give us readers the real context of those photos!!! Thank you Victoria!

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
  13. Wow what wonderful women these two are, Taj and Esmat! I have a great interest in Iran and its history. It is a shame that India, with its connection going back to antiquity (what with the claims of the original Hindus being from Iran claim), knows so less about Iran. Thank you for sharing her story.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
  14. Thank you for doing the research and writing about these two remarkable women. I would not have known about their legacies otherwise.
    Cathy

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
  15. Thanks. I found this really interesting.
    It is good to always be aware of the misinformation that is so filling our minds with rubbish. There is so much to know but facebook is not the place to find it. Appreciated very much your information on some very different women of their time.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
  16. […] suo blog A Bit of History, la storica Victoria Martínez svela la vera storia delle principesse ‘Esmat-al-Dowleh e Taj […]

    Like

    Reply
  17. Genuinely a fantastic read, I have taken it upon myself to share a link to this in the comments section of this meme wherever it appears. Most frequently I see it circulating on Pictures in History on Facebook (no surprises).

    Even when you use this meme to try and counter the image driven narrative we are pressurised by (which is what I am interacting with currently) it weakens your position if you don’t include the context because you’re actually being as shallow and reactionary as the people you’re trying to engage with and ‘enlighten’! It’s just way too easy to share with a snippet of a point and be done with it. It’s too easy to hit Google and only read headlines then draw conclusions… it’s too easy not to even hit Google.
    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    Thank you for setting a good example and for being here when I needed something balanced, researched and non-sensationalist. | (• ◡•)|

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    • Thank you, Grayson – for both the comment and the work you are doing to counter the meme whenever and wherever it appears. At times I wonder if we are on our way to becoming a society that doesn’t give a damn about context, especially if it takes time to discover or understand. Comments like yours and the others made here give me hope that this is not an inevitability. Thank you!

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
      • When you do good work and make a salient and informed point you’ll draw like-minded people towards you and the loneliness of being the one that cares is diminished for a time… and that’s part of the problem sadly isn’t it? I think our innate human social instincts haven’t caught up with the times and often work against us in a modern and ‘individualist’ world.

        Never has the importance of being singular been so pronounced and never has the rewards of teamwork been so divided and competitive (so far as my weak knowledge of history has me processing currently). There’s more people than ever yet interests groups are forced to seek each other out online. Like our tolerance for each other has diminished perhaps…
        ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

        It’s bizarre how it all becomes a double edged sword though, even and often especially, when you’re doing good work… so much so that even when you’re trying to battle the negative impacts of something or point out the real-as-the-information-at-hand-allows context that you’re still emotionally placed on a battlefield left making wider points than we might actually want to make as it is always tied together isn’t it?
        ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

        Nonetheless, the social issues of our techno world aside (beyond a lack of curiosity or need for illumination from our ignorance), I’m just grateful to have found someone reliable and I’m happy to follow you and see what else falls out of your fingers. 😉

        I think perhaps we are forced to seem as if we know everything, seemingly paradoxical for a time people just Google the quickest answer anyway and have easy access to just about all the worldly information you could possibly desire. You’d think with the reliance on technology we’d be more not less humble about what we think we ‘know’, but humans are rebellious aren’t we?

        I often have a little rant but I’m getting more likely to just post a link and be done with it. Or to have written up a thought in my blog and let that stand as my position.

        I think I’m probably just rambling now haha thanks for the swift and positive reply!
        ( ར ₹, ཬ )

        Liked by 1 person

      • Well, ramble away, because that was about the best thing I read today. Thank you. It’s nice to feel less “alone.” I really appreciate what you’ve written.

        Liked by 1 person

      • I started a blog post about why I refuse to take any strong position in any regard in the modern world. It’s still a draft but my approach to this meme initially was to use it as an example by which we are drawn to explaining things and countering them but inevitably end up trying to teach others something. Which is a giant assumption, and sort of egotistical. It is like correcting someone’s grammar then making a glaring mistake, it undermines your point not because it means anything but because your own contrived sense of absolute right and wrong forced you into an undefendable perfect… you can’t teach the undefined masses because you must know the person and be familiar of them, and even then nobody seems to bother describing much specifically who they are talking to or about so they’ve assumed the subject and glossed over their credentials (conveniently) and the audience must assume who the hell they’re talking about or to… then confusion occurs. It becomes another unnecessary battleground and people that like clarity (I’m generously including us both in this category — I hope you don’t mind haha) just try to tidy up the mess but get met with some derisive way to disregard them. Some snarky remark ‘tldr nobody cares’… but actually I do and so should you because our ability to take in more than a handful of snippets of text at a time is insanely low so forgive me for practicing my counterpoint practice to the trend that will leave me worse off if I don’t.

        You can’t find a way forward to untangle a rope when they keep retrying knots on both ends faster than you can undo them… and if they just let you and cut it out you’d probably teach them the history and function of each knot as well as introduce new knots and helpful links to knot tutorials. That’s why I just dropped your link, I didn’t even start a comment in the thread because I knew it was pointless and rather than read your information they’d get sucked into my verbiage. It’s an unfamiliar tactic for me to be frank, all too easily people get overwhelmed whereas on my end I can write and read 10,000 word comments for fun haha (ō¯¯ō;)

        It’s interesting to me because I consider this a better use of my time but it’s also a sign that I’ll slip into the position by which I become uncomfortable with future interactions and unfamiliar with the format of the thing. I just find it fascinating that you can’t do right for wrong when it comes to people you know?

        I like your approach because it’s something I struggle to do, I don’t keep it concise and factual. I dive head on into what it isn’t as much as what it could be, let alone what it is. That’s a very different style than how my communication works hahaha

        See now I am left unsure where I was going with this because I forget to leave a note for myself saying ‘remember how this ties to the point you were trying to make’.
        ( ར ₹, ཬ )

        Liked by 1 person

  18. […] 1 2 3 var quads_screen_width=document.body.clientWidth; if(quads_screen_width >=1140){ […]

    Like

    Reply
  19. […] 123   okusam.com’da istediğiniz şekilde içerik üretebilir, […]

    Like

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Category

Art History, Feminism in History, Flawed historical narratives, Gender and Sexuality, Middle Eastern History, Neglected and Forgotten History, Nineteenth Century, Royal History, Social History, Women's History

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,