I’ve just been looking at photographs of Emma Raducanu again, this time focusing on her upper chest. She usually wears a pendant cross, which suggests that she is a Christian. Yes I know that some people wear crosses for fashion reasons, but I don’t think she’s in that camp. Maybe it’s more a sign of cultural than religious allegiance, maybe a treasured gift from a grandparent? Or maybe a sign of solidarity with China’s persecuted Christians.
To what extent is it legitimate to inquire into this? The orthodoxy is, not at all, you meddling creep. It’s her business, and it’s utterly irrelevant to her tennis success. But it is not too out-of-order to ponder the symbols that people in the public eye choose to wear.
If she wore a rainbow ribbon, for example, you can bet that plenty of commentators would be speculating on its meaning. Such speculation would not seem intrusive, for it would be assumed that her wearing of this sign was intentional, an invitation to speculate.
Similarly, If her pendant was an image of a saxophone, say, or a cat, or a Chinese character, you can bet that people would link it to her wider life. And it is hardly illegitimate to comment on her decision to wear a Chanel dress and Tiffany earrings to the Met Gala. But when it comes to religious signs, an awkward silence descends. Our culture would prefer that no such awkward symbols or images existed.
Especially on sports stars. Brazilian footballer Christian Neymar has just signed a contract with PSG that reportedly commits him to certain behavioural standards. It is also said to bar him from engaging in ‘religious or political propaganda’.
Already a subscriber? Log in
Comments
Don't miss out
Join the conversation with other Spectator readers. Subscribe to leave a comment.
UNLOCK ACCESSAlready a subscriber? Log in