#Dubai Princely Family | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

blackswaneuroparedux · 1 year

Text

Anonymous asked: I know you’re a royalist and I enjoy your insightful and thoughtful posts on the institution rather than the gossip. However I was wondering if you will be reading Prince Harry’s memoir ’Spare’? What do you make of his public interviews and his Netflix series if you have seen them?

I shall not be reading Prince Harry’s memories ’Spare’ because what’s the point?

Everything we really needed to know has already spilled out across premature leaks of the book and gleeful splashes across the tabloid press. Thankfully I don’t have to read these rags where I live.

But you can’t escape. There seems to be a media blitz by the Duke and Duchess of Sussex in recent weeks. Even out in Verbier where I was enjoying a ski vacation with my family, since my return from Dubai, one couldn’t escape the Sussexes.

I can only blame myself for watching the 6 hour snooze fest that was the Netflix documentary series by Harry and Meghan. Those are 6 hours I can never get back. Now I’ve got chatty aunts who are blowing up my WhatsApp with infuriated texts at Harry and his interview and now the book publication. I’m just glad I’m on this side of the Channel in Paris and able to focus on more important things in life.

I’m actually quite sad rather than mad at Prince Harry and his folly. He’s hurting, he’s hurting badly since the death of his mother. If you comb through my blog you’ll know that I didn’t take a particularly negative stance towards Harry and Meghan because they were constitutionally irrelevant - and these are the things I’m really interested in rather than the daily tittle tattle. I’m more interested in Bagehot than royal bonking.

I also had another reason and that was loyalty to a brother officer. We served in the same Army Air Corps out in Afghanistan but our tours didn’t overlap at all as I was a few years behind him and so what I knew of his service was secondhand. But I’ve met him on a few occasions at regimental gatherings and social settings since our circle of friends have some overlap. I hastened to add that I don’t particularly know him but I liked him a lot. He had a disdain for the typical ‘Rupert’ (male officers of a privileged class) but he was quite down to earth and funny with the rank and file soldiers. He was easy going with me and maybe that’s because I was a female officer and I didn’t quite fit into that dominant male Rupert culture. I don’t know for sure.

Still, perhaps it’s the way I’ve been raised but I couldn’t bring myself to comment on his personal life choices, even if one had reservations as to the consequences of them.

But I have to say out of all the revelations that irked me the most it was his revelation of how many Taliban ‘terrorists’ he killed out in Afghanistan. He said he killed around 25 Taliban fighters as a gunner on an Apache helicopter.

There is no reason not to believe him. These things can be easily verified to some extent when after a mission you look over the recorded footage. That’s not what irks me. What bothers me is why he chose to say all this.

There is a code amongst soldiers that you don’t talk about this shit. It’s so unprofessional and unseemly. Even amongst soldiers we don’t talk about it. We know about it but we still don’t talk about it. War is mostly tedious, boring, and waiting around for the shit to hit the fan. But when it does you move your arse into gear and get your job done. And when it’s done, come home, crack open a beer with comrades out of shared relief, be thankful you made it out alive, and then shut the fuck up.

I think Harry really has let himself down and his fellow army brothers and sisters. Forget for a moment the security risk because of his disclosure, amongst British veterans I chat with on private social media, they feel a sense of personal betrayal. I don’t feel that but I do feel Harry hasn’t done himself any favours in regaining the genuine respect every soldier had for him for getting his hands dirty in the trenches and not expecting any special favours because he was a royal.

It’s hard not to feel some sympathy for Harry. It can’t be easy being the spare, the younger brother whose role in the royal “firm” started in a position of subordination and has become steadily more subordinate as more direct heirs arrive to dilute his lineage. There are plenty of younger siblings who have suffered in this way although none of us can imagine the particular hardship of being the “spare” to a throne. Add to that the unimaginable repressed pain and grief of losing his mother and to do so in public is something none of us can fathom. No wonder he was happy in the army where he could be himself and achieve things on personal merit, and more importantly, be away from the fierce and unforgiving public glare.

But that was then. That was the Harry before he met Meghan Markle. A very different Harry has emerged. He sounded less British and more American with all this woke gobble gook. I mean this as no slight to my American friends but Harry should really trade in his British passport and become a permanent resident of California.

What I saw made me pity him. I saw a man so seething with resentment, so unaware of his own privilege, that he is eaten up with petty grievances. He complains about his stepmother turning his old bedroom at Clarence House into a dressing room – when he was 28 years old and in possession of an entire house of his own. We see a man so dim he sees no contradiction between expressing hope for a reconciliation with his family, at the very same time as bitching about them on the world stage. A man so lacking in self-awareness he sees no hypocrisy in complaining about the press intruding on his privacy, in the exact same breath as he tells tittle tattle tales about his brother and sister-in-law. A man so self-absorbed he has no notion of duty, service or respect – either to brotherly bonds, the royal family or the ‘code of silence’ among soldiers.

Why would anyone expose themselves to the world in this way?

A common explanation is that Harry is doing this for the money - that in order to fund his Montecito lifestyle he must sell his soul to Netflix and Penguin books. I’m not sure I buy that argument fully. Certainly through the the many interviews and hours of Netflix footage show no sign of a man held hostage, with personal details being cajoled out of him against his will. Another common explanation that Meghan puts him up to it but as popular as that prevailing view is in the UK, I really don’t think he had Meghan Markle by his side to be so insufferable and whiney. Ms. Markle may have given him the ammunition of language (‘unconscious bias’, ‘white privilege’, ‘lived experience’, ‘my truth’ etc) but the thoughts are all his. This is all on him and his repressed resentments towards his own family.

Watching Harry unload is as fascinating as watching a car crash in slow motion. To me Harry is a cautionary tale of what happens when we abandon all boundaries between the public and private spheres of our lives. Harry seems to have lost any sense of a border between his interior world of thoughts and feelings, and the outside world of speech; between the private realm of family and home and the public realm of work, responsibility and social convention.

Call me a stiff arsed Brit but I am not the only one. I feel I reflect the private horror of most British people that someone could be so confessional in such a shamelessly public way. It’s like the staple ending of all romcom Hollywood movies where the guy has to confess his error before the crowd to win back the girl.

We Brits take another approach. Families argue all the time. Siblings fight. We get angry and upset. And in the heat of the moment, we say things we might later regret. Crucially, this takes place behind closed doors, in private. The privacy of the home allows us to behave badly, but also to forgive each other and move on. Making details of private squabbles public imbues them with a permanence that they were never meant to have.

If the late Queen Elizabeth II represented an old set of values, Harry and Meghan best embody the new era. The two generations of royals could not be more different. Out goes the stiff upper lip, in comes public emoting. ‘Never complain, never explain’ has been replaced by a six-hour Netflix ‘pity party’. Service to others has been redefined as sharing mental-health struggles. Where the late Queen spoke of nationhood, the Sussexes speak of victimhood. The late Queen kept her cancer diagnosis secret until her death. We read about Meghan’s miscarriage in her column for the New York Times.

The late Queen’s commitment to serve represented more than just an individual pledge. It captured a generational ethos. Harry and Meghan embody the elite assumptions of their age.

There’s the identitarianism, masquerading as anti-racism. By presenting herself as a victim of racism – on, it must be said, rather spurious grounds of ‘unconscious bias’ a term so beloved of HR corporate departments – Meghan Markle has gained status and authority. And in marrying Meghan Markle, Harry is no longer the soldier who introduced us to his ‘little Paki friend’, but a warrior against racism. He is born again. Hallelujah!

Meghan’s gender supposedly makes her a victim, too. She takes every opportunity to remind us that, as a child, she wrote a letter complaining about a sexist advert for washing-up liquid.

Then there’s the Sussexes’ insistence on proclaiming ‘their truth’. Harry and Meghan claim that the truth is whatever they happen to feel at any point in time. If you feel that you were raised without siblings (Meghan) or that you were ‘literally’ brought up in Africa (Harry), then everyone else better just accept it. Although, as the queen so succinctly put it, ‘recollections may vary’.

Woke advocates like Harry and Meghan insist that truth is subordinate to the political narrative. You don’t need to bring any evidence when you’re railing against a supposedly racist media and a Brexit Britain still not over losing the empire.

This is not just about Harry and Meghan. The values this privileged couple embody and the ideas they articulate are continually affirmed by the cultural elite. Netflix, Spotify and book publishers stump up millions for their output. Just this month, the Sussexes were recognised for their ‘philanthropic work fighting against racism and oppression around the world’ by the Robert F Kennedy Human Rights organisation. Academics and journalists lend credibility to their remarks on the Commonwealth and their criticisms of the media. An army of tweeters and commentators are permanently ready to leap to the couple’s defence.

The late Queen’s death also seems to mean that taking pot-shots at the monarchy has become completely acceptable. In their Netflix series, Harry and Meghan criticise ‘the palace’ frequently. They moan about William’s shouting and Charles’s indifference. They mock rituals like curtseying, and visibly struggle with the notion of hierarchy.

Harry seems to resent his place on the hierarchy within the royal family. His resentment is no different in character from any sibling rivalry or our place in society’s hierarchal social and class structures.

Ideas of resentment and jealousy of course echo through time - all the way back to the Garden of Eden with Lucifer resenting God’s creation of Adam and Eve. They have also played a prominent part in the 19th Century, when philosophers sought to create new theories of morality without God. Friedrich Nietzsche, one of my favourite philosophers, borrowed a French word, ressentiment, to anchor the origins of his moral philosophy. By his estimation, Western moral thinking had its roots in the master-slave relationship.

The weak and marginalised members of society (such as persecuted Christians) resented those who oppressed them (the masters) and inverted the prevailing morality, turning humility, equality and compassion into the highest virtues. Nietzsche, one of my favourite philosophers, put it best, “While the noble man lives in trust and openness with himself … the man of ressentiment is neither upright nor naive nor honest and straightforward with himself. His soul squints; his spirit loves hiding places, secret paths and back doors, everything covert entices him as his world, his security, his refreshment.”

The dominant creed of the resentful for most of the 20th Century was Socialism. As George Orwell pointed out, socialists don’t generally love the poor, they hate the rich. When Marxist materialism became discredited with the realisation of the economic failures of the Soviet Union and the rising death counts of Communists and Socialist regimes around the world, the bearers of ‘ressentiment’ turned to other domains into which to inject their venom. Key targets were the spheres of culture, family life, sex, and race.

And so was born critical theory, the bastard child of Post-Modernism and Frankfurt School post-Marxism. To this conception we owe the hierarchy of victimhood, the one to which we must now all defer; it also spawned the language of the social justice warriors - words such as “my truth”, “lived experience”, “white privilege” (or any other kind of privilege for that matter) “intersectionality” and so on.

The virus of critical theory was smuggled into the American culture via academia (two members of the Frankfurt School - Marcuse and Adorno - actually emigrated from Germany to US universities before the war). And from academia, critical theory (popularly understood as wokery) has infected the media, publishing, newsrooms, Hollywood, sports commentators, public administration, HR departments, and even Big Tech. Perhaps the last place you would expect it to appear is the British Royal family. But here comes along Harry, a Prince in the House of Windsor.

I think deep down Harry’s resentment gives credence to his self-belief that he himself is a victim and therefore a loser in life’s lottery, even if he does come from the most privileged of the privileged. Harry has no doubt been deeply frustrated by his status within the family and the nature of his “spare”ness. There is resentment and there is jealousy. Of course the woke creed appeals. And no wonder Harry adopts its language. Which leaves us, ironically, with a hereditary Prince lecturing us about ‘privilege’.

Moreover, Harry’s conduct says a lot about the prevailing norms of our culture about confessing our ‘sins’, and therefore our souls. Harry has been taught to reveal every last intimate detail of his life. More likely, he has been taught by therapists and mentors that this is the right thing to do.

The popular assumption today is that keeping things private or ‘bottled up’ is bad. Complete openness is the best - indeed, the only - way to safeguard your mental health. Harry has imbibed the message that ‘speaking your truth’ is the route to authenticity. We live in an age when being authentic to our ‘true selves’ is considered the pinnacle of achievement. Where centring our own emotional needs above our work, community and even family members is considered not selfish, but imperative.

Fear-mongering about the dark side of privacy has been a popular pastime of psychologists since the time of Sigmund Freud. Over many decades, such beliefs have moved off the therapist’s couch to take root in our broader culture.

Today, the words ‘private’, ‘secret’ and ‘behind closed doors’ arouse suspicion. Rather than conjuring images of home, or the family, a haven in a heartless world, the private sphere has come to be seen as a site of abuse. Reserve, a stiff-upper lip and stoicism are all now considered negative personality traits denoting a lack of warmth and openness. The compulsion to share, to break down the barriers between public and private, is embedded in every aspect of our culture from primary school circle-time to social media, from the advice dished out in magazines to the platitudes spouted by celebrities.

Well, I say screw that.

The irony, of course, is that our sense of ourselves does not become stronger the more it is revealed – it becomes weaker. It leaves us to depend on others to validate our feelings and desires. This is what seems to lie behind Harry’s emotional incontinence. He is not a man exercising agency, in control, seeking only a fat pay cheque. He’s become a pathetic, fragile creature, incapable of seeing beyond his own immediate feelings, unable to exist without constant public validation.

Look, there are of course other dimensions to Harry’s story. There is the tragic shadow of his mother and the diva attention seeking influence of his Hollywood D-list wife. But to the extent that he is a victim, he is the victim not only of his family circumstances but also of poisonous philosophers and the prevailing dominance of American cultural colonialism of wokery (in this the French intellectuals and commentators are 100% correct, as both left and right see it as a specific American wokery, but fail to see that they originally gave birth to this bastard of an incoherent and nihilistic ideology). Perhaps his example can be a cautionary tale to the rest of us. Harry shows us the importance of keeping some things private....because not everything is about you or me.

So, Harry, for the love of God or even for your much beloved granny, just shut the fuck up!

Thanks for your question.

145 notes · View notes

princesscatherinemiddleton · 1 year

Text

The Cambridge Family in 2022 ♛

Well, that sure was a year! First things first, I did in fact kill the Queen (sorry!), meaning we have a new King and a new Prince and Princess of Wales. As part of the events following the death of Queen Elizabeth II, we saw numerous public walkabouts (x, x), as well as many events with foreign diplomats and royals (x, x, x). The Queen's death followed her hugely successful Platinum Jubilee celebrations, which included a surprise George and Charlotte appearance in Cardiff, and Prince Louis stealing the show at the pageant. William and Catherine undertook a number of overseas trip this year: William began with a visit to Dubai; Catherine then visited Denmark as part of her work on the Early Years; the couple visited Belize, Jamaica, and the Bahamas in a controversial tour; and a final overseas visit to Boston, on behalf of the Earthshot Prize. The Cambridge family - now known as the Wales family - also experienced some personal highs. The family moved their main home from Kensington Palace to Adelaide Cottage, in Windsor, and George, Charlotte and Louis began their new school year at Lambrook School. William and Catherine also gained a new niece, as Catherine's sister Pippa gave birth to another daughter, called Rose. The couple were able to experience some sporting highs, with the Princess of Wales becoming Patron of the Rugby Football Union and Rugby Football League in February, and attending a Six Nations match shortly after. She also attended the Sailing Grand Prix. The couple also attended Wimbledon together twice (x, x) (with Catherine also going alone once), as well as the Commonwealth Games. William was also able to see football finally come home, with the Lionesses' winning the 2022 Euros. With Covid-19 finally beginning to retreat and the BRF experiencing a new beginning, I hope the Wales family continue to flourish next year.

#mine #royaltyedit #yearreview #cambridgefamily #kate #will #george #charlotte #louis #denmark22 #2022 tour #service of thanksgiving 2022 #jubilee pageant 22 #louisfirstday #london bridge has fallen down #boston22 #diplomatic reception 22 #christmas carol concert 22

98 notes · View notes

royal-confessions · 4 months

Text

“I don't understand why no "big" royal families came to Prince Mateen's wedding. I thought he was close to the British royal family, he was there for the Queen's funeral and the King's coronation coronation, he was at Jordanian wedding, couple of times Brunei royals had some business in Dubai too but I don't really remember what they were doing tbh. I thought they would come to Brunei to celebrate the wedding but none of them came, they didn't even acknowledge it. Were they even invited?” - Submitted by Anonymous

#prince abdul mateen #Wedding

21 notes · View notes

sassyfrassboss · 10 months

Text

If the prenup says Meghan gets $15m in the event of a divorce but Harry is broke and can’t pay her $15m. How does that work? Does he have to pay in installments? Or is the debt cancelled out?

If court is satisfied with proof that Harold doesn't have $15M nor can he pay it, then yes, debt cancelled.

It's been proven in court repeatedly that family wealth is external and protected in a divorcing. Eg Tessa of Luxemborg tried to argue in court that the Luxemborg royal family is super wealthy and therefore she and the kids should be paid serious money ( $200M) based on ex-husband Prince's Louis's royal family wealth.

The court threw out her case and made clear that his family wealth had nought to do with the Prince even though his married life had been funded and lavishly gilded by that same family wealth.

The Luxemborg royals had the same deal as BRF where members have all the perks and money as long as they remained part of the family. A divorce meant cutting off Tessa.

In the end she got between £3K - £6K per child per month + education trusts, no house or alimony.

Similar deal with Fergie and Diana where divorce settlement was predicated on personal wealth of their husbands and not the royal family wealth or trusts.

Fergie got penuts compared to Diana because Andrew's personal wealth was nought. The Queen adored Fergie and Andrew being favourite son meant that exception was made for Bea and E as far as the trusts created for them due to the divorce plus education and day to day living costs ( all this was made public knowledge at the time). I'll also add that Fergie and Andrew didn't want to divorce, but her series of public embarrassments culminating in the public revelation of her 2 affairs ( Steve Wyatt - horse riding photos with Bea therein AND Financial advisor - toe sucking with Bea and E in the pictures) was a red line for the family and their divorce was ordered. No mediation or couples therapy. Andrew begged The Queen to rescind the order, but this is one of the few times she stood her ground and insisted upon the divorce. BUT the way it was handled was very amicable. Fergie kept *her HRH, she briefly moved out, but then moved back in, she continued to attend private royal family affairs including Sandrigham christmas, but kept out of sight etc.

*Fergie's HRH was not part of the divorce agreement and for afew months afterwards she was HRH Sarah, duchess of York, BUT Diana voluntarily gave up her own HRH as part of her divorce negotiations because she wanted to cut ALL ties with the royal family. Afew weeks later she was hit with the reality of the lost status of not being HRH and ran to the media to ran a campaign about those mean royals taking her HRH title away and even invoked William in her media games. She hoped the media would bully The Queen into giving it back. Instead, The Queen amended the LP to add that anyone divorcing an HRH automatically lost their own which unfortunately took Fergie's post-divorce HRH too.

Diana got a better divorce settlement because Charles was personally wealthy unlike his siblings. While he couldn't touch the duchy of Cornwall assets to fund the divorce, he'd built up personal wealth separate from the duchy and that is what he gave Diana in the divorce. He had to borrow cash from The Queen to do it, but he didn't touch duchy assets.

Haya of Dubai was divorcing a man so extremely wealthy that he makes the royals look like paupers in comparison. And the Judge didn't allow her serious money in consideration of his wealth. Frankly, i thought she got very little. 9/10th of her settlement was restricted to security matters as the judge recognised that her Ex is a clear and present danger and she'll need that level of security for rest of her life. Take that sum out of the equation and she barely cleared £50M for herself.

All this to say that Meghan hoping for royal family settlement on her should she divorce Harry is delusional.

She'll get a settlement based upon his private wealth and not a penny more. And if it turns out that she has more than him, she'll end up paying him - happens all the time in California divorces eg Halle Berry.

Meghan also has several negatives that mean family won't play gall eg her direct attacks on them, her personality, the bullying report etc

—-

Thank you so much for this!

I wi say the Tessy thing never really set well with me. I mean I dislike her immensely but she was trying to get some money and I think her ex was like “yeah but I’m worth less than poverty wages…” which you know damn well he just didn’t want to pay out…

I am super curious why his engagement with the lawyer didn’t work out?

Oh and Halle’s divorce!? Man her true colors have come out over the years huh?

#submission

50 notes · View notes

bangtan-roleplay9898 · 1 year

Text

RP Call!

Alrighty y’all! I’m reaching out again to see if anyone wants to rp :) I have time to do so during the week and weekends (if I’m not out and about) and I work from home so I can keep up. Here’s a couple plots that I’m interested in, along with members

Idol Verse

Idol x Oc (There’s a couple ideas I have with this one lol)

Plot One: Jimin and oc are childhood friends and are pretty much inseparable. Before he officially became an idol, she was a casual Youtuber, just filming them together hanging out or talking about things. As he officially became an idol, she got to witness all of it, making her become more popular among the fanbase. They grow together in their careers and their relationship. They started dating right after his performance with BTS and now Jimin wants to propose, while they go to Dubai for their summer package (so 2016 BTS).

Plot Two: Yoongi and oc met while she was recording covers of some of her favorite songs one day. He had stuck around, liking what he was hearing and wanted to work with her, just to see how they’d fit together. Not only did the two like how they did work together, but it also sparked something between them.

Fantasy and Kingdom AUs

Fallen Angel (Taehyung) x oc (I still love this one so I’m open to it)

King Yoongi (Inspired by Daechwita) x Princess ~Future Queen~ Oc

Prince (Member) x Mermaid oc (One of my favorites)

Other AUs

Jimin x Oc (Based off I Need U): They both come from troubled families, which made him leave during their freshman year, leaving her behind. Years later, he comes back for her, to get her out of her situation.

Same rules apply! :)

#rm #jin #suga #jhope #jimin #v #jungkook #kim namjoon #kim seokjin #min yoongi #jung hoseok #park jimin #kim taehyung #jeon jungguk #bts #bts rp #bts roleplay

22 notes · View notes

jordanianroyals · 10 months

Photo

Princess Nejla bint Asem for Vogue Arabia February 2023

By Gina Tadros & Nadine El Chaer

Photograher: Bader Sounnoqrot

Princess Nejla, daughter of Prince Assem, is one of the distinguished women who managed to manage their lives brilliantly, so she succeeded in overcoming all obstacles and challenges and was able to reconcile her work in the field of jewelry design with her status as a member of the royal family in Jordan and her role as a mother.

Princess Nejla went to study media and obtained a degree from Goldsmith University Dubai, but she chose jewelry design because of her passion for this field. Of course, the princess was not satisfied with her passion, so after graduating from the College of Mass Communication, she traveled to Florence, Italy, to study design and wax carving at Le Arti Orafe School, before returning to Dubai to study diamonds at AGI. Thus, the Jordanian princess would have refined her passion and armed herself with knowledge and knowledge to launch into a world of her passion and love since her childhood.

As a child, the princess used to wander downtown in the Jordanian capital, Amman, looking for the magic of the luster and colors of precious stones, and she was often amazed by the splendor of oriental antiques. The Jordanian princess remembers how she used to "exaggerate" the rosaries that fell under her hands to make a necklace or bracelet out of her imagination from her beads. The princess considers that her grandmother, Sultan Mihrimah, was the first to encourage her, and expressed his admiration for what she makes of rosary beads, and her latest fans are her own family, that is, her husband and children. Her husband, Nasser, supports her to be always superior and successful, and due to his work in the field of business administration, he supported and pushed her to transform her passion and ideas into a company.

In the beginning, Nejla designed for her family members and friends, and most of her jewelry was from her designs. She decided to settle in Jordan because of the encouragement and welcome she found from her surroundings, and with this decision she had to find a way to promote her business away from her name as a member of the royal family. One day she wanted to take advantage of her position to increase her aura or to raise her status among people, and she says in this regard: “There is no doubt that my family has given me a lot of confidence and contributed to the development of the designs that I am doing. High artistic taste. As for my title, I do not employ it in my professional life. I like to start from being an artist and creator to present what satisfies tastes and satisfies my artistic ambition. Perhaps the best evidence that she does not rely on her surname is her distancing from the illustrious names even in clothing. When asked about the brands she likes, she simply replied: “I do not have a specific brand. I love what suits me and what satisfies my taste. As for jewelry, I love modern designers who have their own fingerprints, and at the same time their designs touch a special feeling in me.

When drawing designs, Nejla takes inspiration first from her affectionate mother, and she always talks about her with pride, saying: “Perhaps the secret of my success is due to my mother (Sana Kalimat)’s constant care for me and her blessing for all my successes and her continuous prayers. My mother and father (Asim bin Nayef bin Abdullah) are My first inspiration in my work, because they are the first to see the designs and have a good taste that supports me in all situations.” The designer princess is also inspired by her surroundings, such as nature, as she loves nature and perseveres in doing activities in her bosom, so she contemplates its details, walks among its parts, and isolates herself in her arms, away from the crowds. She also loves adventure, learning new languages and new skills in an effort to always be positive and enthusiastic. Historical artifacts and geometric shapes, as well as the memories in her imagination, and her ideas regarding the future are all also sources of inspiration that enrich the imagination of the princess.

She confirms that a person is the son of his environment, in addition to her past and her surroundings, she was affected by all that her eyes saw in Jordan of the civilizations of successive ages and what was left of the effects of the Romans and Islamic civilization and its richness in architectural monuments that still dazzle the eyes such as Petra, Jerash, Umm Qais and many others, and all that Jordan contains of treasures. Traveling in the life of the princess is also a source of inspiration, as it is an opportunity to stay in constant contact with ideas that you had not thought of before, and to learn new things, contemplating the beauty of nature that creates inspiration, energy and creativity.

Nejla seeks to choose what suits women's taste, and her designs often meet with admiration and acceptance by her customers. What she hopes most is to encourage women to work and produce and to develop their ideas. In her view, women are the epitome of strength, tenderness and giving, and she admires those who know their goal in life and move towards it with confidence. She explains: “If she is a mother, then her goal is to take care of her children and her home, instill in them the values of goodness and virtue, and contain them with her tenderness. At every stage of a woman’s life, her message differs, but she must at all stages strive for science and culture because we are in an era where it is not appropriate for a woman to be without a cultural and scientific identity.” She bears it from transmitting these values to her children, and she lacks a sense of this greatness to feel that she has a great role in life, and the world is beginning to wake up and feel her greatness and the importance of her role in society, family cohesion, and women’s support for women is a great thing, and it helps this success, and our ambition is to see greater support for Arab women.

In addition to her work in the field of jewelry design, Princess Nejla is the mother of two daughters, Karima and Shayma, and she is keen to plant many principles in them, the most important of which are religion, humanity, honesty, honesty, perfection in work, respect for the other, and taking responsibility for the service of humanity. Anything that contradicts these values is a red line that she totally refuses to cross. The two girls, as she admires the ancestors, their values, and their strength, and is optimistic about the future and the coming generations, and looks forward to the coherent personality of the values.

Translated from Original Article in Arabic

#princess nejla #interview

8 notes · View notes

desiredprince · 1 year

Text

━━━ CHARACTER SHEET

FULL NAME: 𝕷𝖊𝖘𝖙𝖆𝖙 𝖉𝖊 𝕷𝖎𝖔𝖓𝖈𝖔𝖚𝖗𝖙

NICKNAME: Les, Wolf-killer, Daddy, Uncle Les, Lioncunt

ALIASES: The Vampire Lestat, The Brat Prince, The Damnedest Creature, Rule Breaker

PRONOUNS: He/Him

HEIGHT: 6'0"

AGE: Near 300 ( Modern ) 222 ( Rock star era ), late 100s

ZODIAC:. Scorpio. ( ---- possessive, controlling , suspicious, investigative. passionate, intense, competitive, romantic, sexual, artistic ). His birthday is on November 7th

LANGAUGES:. French, English, Italian & some Spanish

HAIR: Blond hair that is not quite shoulder length, and that is rather curly at the ends, Sometimes appears white under fluorescent lighting.

FACIAL HAIR: clean, no facial hair.

EYES: His eyes are grey - blue, BUT they reflect the colors of every variation of blue or violet easily from surfaces around them. They appear very vibrant & almost hypnotic.

SKIN: Pale, fair, soft.

BODY TYPE: Muscular, as if he is built from Michelangelo himself. Strong arms, fitted waist. His nose is fairly short and narrow, while his mouth is well shaped 'though slightly too large for his face', The only feature that proves he is not human is his glazed fingernails which give the impression that they are made of glass.

VOICE: Deep, soft, confident --- though once he yells he YELLS. It echoes off the walls & is striking to the human ear. Once you hear him speak you can tell how cocky, self-centered, egotistical he is. He tends to LAUGH when he’s nervous when he’s not supposed to & he finds it really difficult to stop.

DOMINATE HAND: ambidextrous

POSTURE:. confident, no slouching. Some say he walks into every room hips first.

SCARS: None.

BIRTHMARKS: soft star freckles throughout his body but nothing major.

NOTISABLE FEATURES: Eyes, nose, body. He believes his best noticeable feature is well -- ALL of him.

PLACE OF BIRTH: Auvergne, France

HOMETOWN: New Orleans

SIBILINGS: Youngest of 3, only one to survive to adulthood

PARENTS: Gabrielle & Marquis d'Auvergne. Marquis was blind & died young. Mother was changed by her son --- as well as his first fledgling. Gabrielle also becomes the first to leave him. Mother & Son become extremely bonded for life -- Lestat recalls her being cold & uncaring to everyone. She was the only person who was educated in her family and read her books every day, yet lacked the patience to teach Lestat how to read or write.

OCCUPATION: rock star, musician, author, theatre actor, hunter.

CURRENT RESIDENCE: France, New Orleans, on tour, Dubai ( --- all depends on timeline. )

CLOSE FRIENDS: Louis de pointe du Lac, Claudia, Armand, Daniel, David, Rose ---- would you call them friends, though ?

FINANICAL STATUS: wealthy, well off.

LICENSE: Probably at one point but he never gets it renewed so . . . good luck.

VICES: Blood, lots of blood, interesting beautiful people, music, art, the state of great comfort and extravagant living, interesting architecture

SEXUAL ORIENTATION: nondiscriminating ! mostly queer --- pansexual. He just like sex, with anyone. He is attracted to whoever most interests him at the time. Most of his early experiences are with male companions; he himself explains this by saying the women in previous centuries simply were not as interesting as men. He will ALSO offhandedly mention that he is frightened of women ( & feminine men ) to the point that he finds them extremely & egregiously distracting.

EMOTIONAL ROLE & SEXUAL STYLE: Very dominate with whoever he is with, sorry about it. He’s a rough passionate person & will likely do the most weirdest things to capture the attention of his partner.

TURN ONS: blood, blood play, sexual confident creatures, bold confident beautiful individuals, blurred lines in context, bruises, scratches, blonde woman usually, artistic nature of the human being, talent when it comes to the arts.

TURN OFFS: things not going his way, sharing usually, not finishing something that is already started. ( Can’t stand the heat? stay out of the kitchen. )

LOVE LANGAUGE: gift giving, foreplay, playing instruments together, teasing, softly touching their face or body, writing them music & playing it for them, hunting together & sharing the kill, quiet wine drinking together at the table while talking among themselves, quiet evenings in front of the fire with someone.

RELATIONSHIP TENDENCIES: he’s not really into the relationship UNLESS he believes you to be his soulmate. He hasn’t ever had a love like Nicki UNTIL Louis came along. Despite his charisma, Lestat is portrayed as a lonesome individual & goes along with no strings attached --- until he does find that some strings actually have knots & are harder to pull apart.

THEME: playlist.

HOBBIES TO PASS THE TIME: playing the piano, any piano related instrument & the violin, writes songs, sings, writes his own books, drinks blood like it’s wine, standing out on the balcony on a clear night to look up at the stars, smoking, feeding, sex, but mostly just quietly reading a book & looking around so no one sees that he can actually enjoy some literature while a classic tune plays over the radio.

LEFT OR RIGHT BRAINED: right brained, creative type.

SELF CONFIDENCE LEVEL: Lestat is extremely overly confident & prideful who never lets his guard down & he TRIES hard not to show vulnerability. Except when he does, he breaks & starts screaming or crying when he shouldn’t. Despite the fact that he shows to the world, deep down, Lestat is incredibly sensitive. He feels all emotions very deeply, & he feels as if he must guard his heart with a shield. He is HIGHLY aware of his own actions and how much of a nuisance he can be. He MAY be very sentimental & susceptible to the feelings of others & that too can become a problem when we add the fact that he is easily hurtful. ( WARNING LABEL: not for the faint of heart )

#▸ 𝐒𝐓𝐔𝐃𝐘 || i am an unwilling devil.#▸ 𝐋𝐄𝐒𝐓𝐀𝐓 || There is one thing about being a vampire that I must fear above all else and that is lonelines.#━━━ desired prince.#tagging: you !

8 notes · View notes

nalyra-dreaming · 9 months

Note

Hi! Feel free not to answer this ask because I know the discourse topic of lestat’s cheating is most definitely a dead horse at this point in the fandom but I wanted to send you some thoughts. I’ve been seeing some of the new viewers from Max who’ve now watched the show simply labelling and dismissing lestat as The Cheater which does sadden me a bit to see how the nuance of loustat’s relationship (from a book fan pov) has been reduced to that because of those particular choices by the writers. I don’t mean to be too negative and I think the nuance IS there in the show, I like so much of what the writers did, but did something like excessively circling back to lestat’s infidelity overshadows too much of the actual core reasons for the families inevitable doom in NOLA? Because I understand how new viewers not picking up some of the other layers to it. In the book the stuff with Antoine is certainly there but that’s at the end of 60 years together as opposed to in the show where it’s like 25 or so years on and off cheating out of 30 years together, it does change things. Do you think that writing choice was the right one in the show or does it depend on if they revisit it in the future? It’s hard as a book fan for me personally to make that call because in the books the relationships are far more fluid, ambiguous, between the lines and all that, so what was and wasn’t infidelity throughout the chronicles just isn’t ever the main concern, there are allusions to jealousy but never betrayal quite like in the show, but the show is doing it’s own thing and maybe this is how iwtv lestat would act in a more monogamous traditional relationship with Louis in this time period, it’s hard to call.

Thanks x

Hey!

(I get you, still....^^)

It is weird (to me), that the focus Louis put on Lestat's cheating... works so well.

Because yes, within the tale Antoinette serves as the "reason". The reason Louis is so destroyed, the reason he is depressed, the reason why Claudia is mad. The reason why Louis is suffering so bitterly.

Convenient, isn't it. :)

Because they were threatened. Louis has a hard time with the right of passage. Louis also has a hard time killing (and an eating disorder), and a hard time with the lack of intimacy coming from the lack of libido. Louis chokes on his own hypocrisy, and the choices he made. His guilt. Louis has bouts of depression. Louis withholds, to punish.

Of course the cheating doesn't help, how could it.

But Louis very skillfully directs the focus of the tale ("Let the tale seduce you") to that aspect of the relationship, and the impact it (undoubtedly) had.

But... others have pointed it out, too (recently saw a post on Twitter, reposted by @neilcfreak there iirc??) that Antoinette... does not quite fit with the tale. Her hairstyle, her clothes. That she doesn't age (until she's turned). The finger thing. And also: the cross-dressing (and a likely resemblance to Gabrielle, I would imagine)

Personally I think the whole Antoinette arc is not yet through.

Maybe she'll be the one accusing them on the stage in Paris. It's certainly possible, and then it would be a heightening of that arc, in a sense.

And maybe... you know I wouldn't put it past Rolin and the writers to go more book canon there and let her show up in Dubai. Because we know already that they're taking from "Prince Lestat". And we know that the tale was not as it was told, at least not completely. We know already that they want to revisit everything and that it will "change how we saw season 1".

On this note:

(I‘m blocked by them but got recc'ed and sent that post 🤷🏽‍♀️):

And that is indeed very interesting - but not just because it fits Louis.

Because Louis does not need to eavesdrop here imho, he is literally in the same room.

But… outside Antoine(tte) is.

Antoine. Subject of the novel. Antoine(tte), tasked to eavesdrop on Louis and Claudia, to keep an eye on them, to follow them. Isolated from them, too.

In the book Antoine is quite soft and somewhat remote, very much intellectually driven and by music, melancholic and socially isolated, something that must have happened to Antoinette as well while she waited those 20 years(?) for Lestat to turn her.

Yet he felt ugly, loathsome, unfit to live, existing from moment to moment like an addict. He gravitated to the crippled, the diseased, the bohemian, and the downtrodden when he wanted an evening of conversation, just a little cerebral companionship. It kept him from weeping. It kept him from killing too brutally and indiscriminately. He slept in graveyards when he could find a large and secret crypt, or in cons in cellars, and now and then almost trapped by the sun he dug straight down into the moist Mother Earth, uttering a prayer that he would die there. [...] Antoine would have gone out west to see Lestat on the stage. But he was still struggling with the simplest difficulties of life in the late twentieth century when the massacres began.

I think that book is another meta commentary on the truth bleeding through and a direct reference to Antoine. Maybe these books are Louis' subconscious, depending on whether he changed that memory/tale himself... or not.

And so... I can totally see the show take Antoine's characterization and return from "Prince Lestat" to be honest.

((Imagine if she's the "interior designer".^^))

We'll see.

But as with all the things about this show I don't think it can be fully analyzed yet. We simply do not have the full picture yet. And so... I'm not 100% sure we are that far from book canon, actually. In fact, I think we may be much closer in some aspects than previously thought.

But we'll see. Season 2 will tell :)

The cheating definitely seems to be what people get worked up most though, which is exactly why the focus is where it is I think...

Look at my right hand, not at my left.

Let the tale... seduce you.

In the pages of the first book, published long ago, he found himself, nameless, “the musician,” with not so much as a physical description except that he’d been a “boy,” a mere footnote to the life and adventures of his maker as told by the vampire Louis, that one whom Lestat had so loved, and feared to anger. “Let him get used to the idea, Antoine, and then I’ll bring you over. I can’t ... I can’t lose them, Louis and Claudia.” [...]

“He was my friend, Lestat,” Antoine confessed. “He told me about his lover, Nicolas, who had been a violinist. He said he couldn’t speak his heart to his little family, to Louis or Claudia, that they would laugh at him. So he spoke his heart only to me.” [...] “But I have to go,” Antoine said. He burst into tears. He wrapped his arms tight around himself and rocked back and forth on the edge of the bed. His long black hair fell down over his face. “I have to get back to Lestat. I have to. And if anyone can help me nd him, it’s Louis, isn’t it?” [...] Let me in, I beg you, let me in. Louis, let me in. Made by Lestat, never having had a chance to know you, never meant to harm you or Claudia, those long-ago times, forgive me, let me in. Benji, my guiding light, let me in. Benji, my consolation in unending darkness, let me in. Armand, I beg you, find a place in your heart for me, let me in.

And Louis lets him in.

Now, I can obviously be wrong^^.

But... I just cannot shake the suspicion that this arc is far from over. 🤷🏽‍♀️

17 notes · View notes

groupfazza · 30 days

Text

التقى سمو الشيخ حمدان بن محمد بن راشد آل مكتوم ولي عهد دبي رئيس المجلس التنفيذي، بمقر المجلس التنفيذي بأبراج الإمارات في دبي، مجموعة من الأطفال المواطنين الذين حرصوا على المشاركة في أعمال التنظيف في عدد من فرجان دبي، في بادرة منهم تعكس سعيهم للمشاركة إلى جانب الكبار في إزالة الآثار التي خلفتها الحالة الجوية الاستثنائية التي شهدتها الدولة الأسبوع الماضي.

وحرص سموه على الحديث إلى الأطفال مستمعاً منهم لرواياتهم حول ما دفعهم للمشاركة في هذا الجهد المجتمعي رغم صغر سنهم، حيث شاهد سموه صوراً توثق مشاركتهم إلى جانب ذويهم وأسرهم في إعادة حالة الطرقات إلى طبيعتها في عدد من فرجان دبي، مؤكداً سموه أن هذه المشاركة تحمل في طياتها العديد من الرسائل المهمة حول أهمية تنشئة الطفل على حب الوطن، وتحفيزه على ترجمة هذه القيم إلى أعمال وانجازات تعود بالنفع على أسرته ومجتمعه.

His Highness Sheikh Hamdan bin Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Crown Prince of Dubai and Chairman of The Executive Council of Dubai, today met with a group of Emirati children who had volunteered to participate in clean-up efforts in various Dubai neighbourhoods in response to the recent adverse weather events witnessed across the emirate.

His Highness engaged with the children as they shared what inspired them to join the community effort. As he viewed images documenting their contributions alongside their families in restoring normalcy on the roads of various neighbourhoods, His Highness said that their participation underscores the importance of instilling in children a love for their homeland and encouraging them to embody these values in actions and achievements that serve both their families and society.

Friday, 26 April 2024 الجمعه

11 notes · View notes

hamdan-fazza · 1 year

Link

#fazza #fazza3 #faz3 #@faz3 #sheikh hamdan #Crown Prince of Dubai #فزاع

14 notes · View notes

ingek73 · 1 year

Text

Royals made almost £2m from sale of horses received as gifts from prominent figures

Palace insists horses given to late queen, including 34 from emir of Dubai, were ‘personal gifts’

King Charles III and his late mother, Queen Elizabeth II, appear to have made almost £2m from the sale of horses that were gifts from prominent figures.

The Guardian has identified more than 40 horses that were apparently given to the queen by a Dubai sheikh, a Muslim religious leader and a Saudi royal.

Some of the horses were sold for profit by the queen, who was a passionate enthusiast for breeding and racing thoroughbreds. Others have been auctioned by the king, who in recent months has been selling some of the horses inherited from his mother, which are estimated to be worth at least £27m.

The queen’s most generous provider of racing and breeding stock by far is Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum, the emir of Dubai and prime minister of the United Arab Emirates. He appears to have been the source of at least 34 horses given to the royals.

The Aga Khan, Prince Shah Karim al-Husseini, the spiritual head of Shia Ismaili Muslims, appears to have given the royal family five horses, including Estimate, who gave the queen one of her most memorable victories on the track, in the 2013 Gold Cup at Royal Ascot.

Estimate (L), ridden by Ryan Moore, wins the Gold Cup at Ascot in 2013. Photograph: Tom Jenkins/The Guardian

The queen also received a horse from Denford Stud, which is owned by Prince Faisal of Saudi Arabia, a half-brother of the crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman; and another from a breeding operation owned by Qatar’s al-Thani family.

In total, 41 horses that raced in the royal colours over the last 15 years were given to Elizabeth, according to a Guardian analysis.

Of those, 29 went under the hammer at a public auction at some point over the past decade, realising a total of £1.93m.

Buckingham Palace indicated that it regards the horses given to the queen as private gifts. A spokesperson said: “Personal gifts given to Queen Elizabeth by those who knew her late majesty privately would remain private, as they would for any other individual.”

They said the monarchy’s gifts policy “makes very clear that gifts are classed as personal when they are given by people whom the member of the royal family knows privately and not during, or in connection with, an official engagement or duty.”

What are the rules on gifts for the royal family?

The policy, introduced in 1995, distinguishes between “official gifts”, which are generally those received in connection with a royal’s official role or during the course of a formal engagement, and “personal gifts”, received from people who members of the royal family know personally, which are not publicly declared.

However, the gifts of horses to the queen raise questions about whether the policy is sufficiently clear to deal with circumstances in which the relationship between the Windsors and their benefactors is more blurred.

The queen’s relationships with Sheikh Mohammed and the Aga Khan were arguably both official and personal, having been developed through formal encounters and a mutual interest in horse racing.

Queen Elizabeth II and Sheikh Mohammed at Epsom in 2011. Photograph: David M Benett/Getty Images

Sheikh Mohammed met the queen on several official occasions, according to the Court Circular, including at a reception in Buckingham Palace in November 2009, and in Abu Dhabi the following year when he hosted the queen and Prince Philip at the official launch of the design for the Zayed National Museum.

All the queen’s horses … and their £27m value to the new king

The queen and Sheikh Mohammed also attended the official signing of a “friendship treaty” at the Emirates Palace hotel in 2010. They appeared at various racing events in the UK, including at Royal Ascot in 2009 when Sheikh Mohammed joined the queen, Philip and Prince Andrew in their carriage.

Their relationship became more complicated in 2020 after Sheikh Mohammed was found by the high court to have abducted two of his own daughters and subjected his ex-wife to a campaign of intimidation. Palace officials subsequently briefed that the queen would no longer allow herself to be photographed with Sheikh Mohammed.

The court later awarded his ex-wife sole custody of their children after concluding that Sheikh Mohammed had used the military spyware Pegasus to carry out cyber-attacks on her and her lawyers, and published threatening poetry about her. A judge concluded he should have no face-to-face contact with the children, on account of his “abusive behaviour”.

Between 2013 and 2015, three horses presented to the queen by the Aga Khan, were sold for between £2,625 and £14,700.

The Aga Khan in London in 2019. Photograph: Jeff Spicer/AFP/Getty Images

The queen and Prince Philip hosted the Aga Khan and his family at a dinner party at Buckingham Palace in July 2008 to celebrate his golden jubilee. Ten years later, she hosted him at another dinner party, this time at Windsor Castle, for his diamond jubilee. Both were official engagements documented in the Court Circular.

The queen appears to have had a long history of accepting – and at times even demanding – horses as gifts. The Times reported two years ago that she accepted gift horses from Sheikh Mohammed even after his wife fled to London.

Last month, the German magazine Der Spiegel said it had found state papers documenting how the queen had asked for two horses as a gift while on a state visit to West Germany in 1978. The country’s president approved the gift in the interests of good relations, despite it being the most expensive gift given to a visiting head of state since the end of the second world war.

Susan Hawley, the executive director of Spotlight, a transparency campaign group, said UK ministers would generally be expected to publicly declare similar gifts and, if they wanted to keep them, reimburse the government. She said it was “not at all clear” why royals should be subject to different guidelines.

“Rules on not accepting gifts and disclosing any that are made are there for a purpose – to protect the reputation of the UK and its public institutions from accusations of being open to influence to the highest bidder,” she said.

WTF sells a gift. For profit.

Thats just rude.

#queen elizabath #king charming #abolish the monarchy #cost of the crown #the guardian

9 notes · View notes