Tag: Prince

  • US NSA meets Saudi Crown Prince, Indian and Emirati counterparts

    US NSA meets Saudi Crown Prince, Indian and Emirati counterparts

    [ad_1]

    Washington: US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan met the Saudi Crown Prince and his Indian and Emirati counterparts in Saudi Arabia during which they discussed bilateral and regional matters and their shared vision of a more secure and prosperous Middle East region interconnected with India and the world.

    The meeting took place in Jeddah on Sunday, the White House said.

    “National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan met with Saudi Prime Minister and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, UAE National Security Advisor Sheikh Tahnoon bin Zayed Al Nahyan, and National Security Advisor of India Ajit Doval on May 7 in Saudi Arabia to advance their shared vision of a more secure and prosperous Middle East region interconnected with India and the world,” the White House said Sunday in a readout of the meeting.

    MS Education Academy

    “Sullivan also held bilateral meetings with the Crown Prince, Sheikh Tahnoon, and Mr Doval to discuss bilateral and regional matters. He looks forward to further consulting with Mr Doval on the margins of the Quad Summit later this month in Australia,” the White House said.

    This is the first meeting between Doval and Sullivan after they launched the ambitious India US ICET (Initiative on Critical and Emerging Technology) dialogue here in January. Sullivan is currently travelling to Saudi Arabia.

    With Crown Prince Mohammed, Sullivan reviewed significant progress in talks to further consolidate the now 15-month-long truce in Yemen and welcomed ongoing UN-led efforts to bring the war to a close, as well as covering a range of other issues.

    “The four delegates agreed to maintain regular consultations and follow up on the matters discussed throughout the day,” the White House said.

    The state-run Saudi Press Agency (SPA) on Monday reported the meeting between Sullivan and Crown Prince in Jeddah.

    They discussed Saudi-US strategic relations and how to enhance them in various fields, as well as regional and international developments of common interest, the SPA reported.

    Separately, the Crown Prince held another meeting with the deputy ruler of Abu Dhabi Sheikh Tahnoun and Indian national security adviser Doval, which Sullivan and the US delegation also attended, it said.

    SPA reported that the meeting involved discussions of ways to strengthen ties between the respective countries in a manner that would enhance the growth and stability of the region.

    Meanwhile, Axios, a Virginia-headquartered news company, reported that the US, Saudi, Emirati and Indian national security advisers were to discuss a possible major joint infrastructure project to connect Gulf and Arab countries via a network of railways that would also be connected to India via shipping lanes from ports in the region.

    The project is one of the key initiatives the White House wants to push in the Middle East as China’s influence in the region grows, the report said. The Middle East is a key part of China’s ambitious Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) vision.

    Launched in 2013 by President Xi Jinping, the BRI is a vast collection of development and investment initiatives that have been planned to link East Asia and Europe through physical infrastructure, significantly increasing China’s economic and political influence across the world.

    A US official had said the project would be one of many topics discussed during the visit.

    The idea for the new initiative came up during talks held over the last 18 months in another forum called I2U2, which includes the US, Israel, the UAE and India, the report quoted two sources as saying.

    The forum was established in late 2021 to discuss strategic infrastructure projects in the Middle East.

    “Nobody said it out loud but it was about China from day one,” a former senior Israeli official directly involved in early discussions on the issue told Axios.

    Israel raised the idea of connecting the region through railways during the I2U2 meetings over the last year. Part of the idea was to use India’s expertise on such big infrastructure projects, the former Israeli official said.

    The Biden administration in recent months expanded on the idea to include Saudi Arabia’s participation.

    The initiative would include connecting Arab countries in the Levant and the Gulf via a network of railways that will also connect to India through seaports in the Gulf, the sources said.

    The Indian, Emirati and Saudi embassies in Washington did not respond to requests for comment, Axios said.

    Sullivan hinted at this initiative during his speech on Thursday at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “If you remember nothing else from my speech, remember I2U2, because you will be hearing more about it as we go forward,” he said.

    Sullivan added the fundamental notion is to connect South Asia to the Middle East to the US “in ways that advance our economic technology and diplomacy.” He also said a number of projects are already underway “and some new exciting steps that we’re looking forward to undertaking in the months ahead.” Sullivan said in his speech that one of the pillars of the Biden administration’s strategy in the Middle East is regional integration.

    Israel is not part of this initiative at the moment, but could be added to it in the future if efforts to further normalise relations in the region make progress, the source said. 

    (Except for the headline, the story has not been edited by Siasat staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

    [ad_2]
    #NSA #meets #Saudi #Crown #Prince #Indian #Emirati #counterparts

    ( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

  • Prince Narula, Gautam Gulati refuse to work with Rhea Chakraborty?

    Prince Narula, Gautam Gulati refuse to work with Rhea Chakraborty?

    [ad_1]

    Mumbai: The much-anticipated reality show Roadies is back with a bang, and it’s time for some action-packed entertainment! The anticipation is palpable, thanks to an all-star panel of judges that includes Gautam Gulati, Sonu Sood, Prince Narula, and Rhea Chakraborty. However, as with any new season, controversy is unavoidable.

    When it was announced that Rhea Chakraborty would be appearing on the show, a section of the audience threatened to boycott it. And it appears that the tensions have now spilled over onto the set. According to the latest reports, Gautam and Prince have decided not to shoot with Rhea due to fears of being trolled.

    But wait a minute, don’t jump to any conclusions just yet! We know you’re curious about what’s going on, and we’ve got the inside scoop. Things appear to be tense between the gang leaders and Rhea, but that’s to be expected on a show like Roadies. With so much competition and drama, tempers are bound to flare.

    MS Education Academy

    And here’s the thing Prince Narula already in the past has come out in support of Rhea, saying that he’s proud of her decision to return to work and face her critics. He believes that everyone deserves another chance and that Rhea should give the show her all. If she has something to say, what better place to say it than on Roadies?

    So, Roadies fans, it appears that we’re in for a wild ride this season. With such a talented and diverse panel of judges, anything is possible. And who knows what else? Perhaps Rhea will surprise us all and win over her detractors with her abilities and determination. Whatever happens, we can’t wait to see what happens!

    [ad_2]
    #Prince #Narula #Gautam #Gulati #refuse #work #Rhea #Chakraborty

    ( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

  • Anointment of Prince Charles as monarch deeply religious

    Anointment of Prince Charles as monarch deeply religious

    [ad_1]

    While enlightened intellectuals of India scoff at traditions and rituals it is of interest to note the Coronation ceremony of Britain’s new King Charles III, is full of traditions and religion.

    A significant moment in the coronation will be the “anointment” ceremony of a king – a purely religious part of the coronation ceremony of the monarch.

    A developed country like the UK which ruled over India for nearly 200 years will even today acknowledge a person as king only after he/she is anointed following strict religious rules.

    MS Education Academy

    There is no legal requirement for a coronation as many monarchies have done away with this ceremony but it has a religious significance in Britain as the monarch is formally confirmed in his role as head of state and titular head of the Church of England.

    The monarch’s anointment will be carried out while he sits on the Coronation Chair, made for King Edward I in 1300. The chair will be having the Stone of Scone, also known as “the Stone of Destiny”. This Stone is an ancient object associated with the kings of Scotland. A 150kg red sandstone slab has some marks on it, along with two attached metal rings. It is supposed to be a  sacred, historic symbol of its monarchy and nationhood.

    The monarch will then be anointed using the Coronation Spoon with holy oil contained in the Ampulla.

    He will be anointed with “holy oil” which will make him the head, or supreme governor, of the Church of England.

    A highly solemn and sacred moment between him and God , there is no recording to be made of it on television. Even when Queen Elizabeth was crowned, this moment of anointment was not filmed.

    It would be one of the most “sacred” moments of his life.

    The coronation oil which will be used for the anointment of King Charles III and Queen Camilla has been consecrated in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem.

    It will be applied symbolically to the forehead, ears, nostrils and breast as the organs of sense.

    The oil that will be used to anoint them is using a formula which has been followed for years and was used to anoint Queen Elizabeth II.

    The official oil was made with olives harvested from local groves including on the Mount of Olives.

    The olives were pressed near Bethlehem, and the oil was perfumed with scents of sesame, rose, jasmine, cinnamon, neroli, benzoin, amber and orange blossom.

    They will be anointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury who is supposed to have thanked His Beatitude Patriarch Theophilos III and Archbishop Hosam Naoum for having blessed and consecrated the oil.

    Interestingly the Bible states that Jesus ascended into heaven from the Mount of Olives. Today, the site is considered sacred by many faiths.

    The choir traditionally sings Handel’s ‘Zadok the Priest’ during this most sacred moment of the coronation, the anointment.

    The oldest item in the Coronation Regalia is the 12th-century Coronation Spoon. It is the only piece of royal goldsmiths’ work to survive from that century. During the coronation ceremony, the spoon is used to anoint the monarch with holy oil.

    The gold Ampulla or flask holds the holy oil. The head of the eagle is removable with an opening in the beak for pouring the oil into the spoon.

    The Sovereign’s Orb is a representation of the monarch’s power. It symbolises the Christian world with its cross set on a globe.

    The gold Orb weighs 1.32kg and is mounted with emeralds, rubies and sapphires surrounded by diamonds and pearls.

     The monarch is given the  Sovereign’s Orb, a gold globe topped by a cross, as well as a ring and two sceptres.

    During the coronation service, the Orb is placed in the right hand of the monarch. It is then placed on the high altar before the moment of crowning.

    The Sovereign’s Sceptre was made for the Coronation of Charles II in 1661 and has been used at every coronation since.

    The Sceptre includes the magnificent Cullinan I diamond, the largest colourless cut diamond in the world.

    In 1911 the Crown Jeweller, Garrard, mounted the diamond in the Sovereign’s Sceptre. The diamond is so large that the Sceptre had to be reinforced to take its weight.

    The Imperial State crown is set with 2,868 diamonds, as well as several famous jewels.

    It includes St Edward’s Sapphire, said to have been worn in a ring by Edward the Confessor.

    The crown also includes the Cullinan II diamond, the second largest stone cut from the great Cullinan Diamond. The Cullinan Diamond is the largest diamond ever discovered.

    The anointing is followed by dressing of the monarch in the spectacular robe of cloth of gold called the Supertunica and the longer Imperial Mantle. The monarch is then presented with other items from the Coronation Regalia.

    These includes the gold spurs, the jewelled Sword of Offering and the Armills. The Armills are gold bracelets representing sincerity and wisdom.

    The ceremony will conclude with the placing of the magnificent St Edward’s Crown on the monarch’s head. The crown features four crosses with a cross and orb at the top to represent Christianity. The cap portion is made of purple velvet and the base is made of ermine fur.

    The senior officials of the United Kingdom pay homage to the newly crowned monarch. They place their hands on the monarch’s knees, swear an allegiance, touch the crown and kiss the monarch’s right hand.

    When going back in the golden stagecoach the King will wear a different crown, the Imperial State Crown.

    The magnificent Cullinan Diamond, the largest diamond ever found, weighing 3,106 carats, has two of its pieces, Cullinan I and Cullinan II, set in the Sovereign’s Sceptre with Cross and the Imperial State Crown.

    As guests surround the coronation platform (where Charles is anointed as King) in Westminister Abbey from all sides and shout, “God Save King Charles…”. They publicly acknowledge the fact that Charles has now become the King.

    Interestingly the act is called “Recognition” or the open acceptance of his becoming the next King.

    Charles will take the Coronation Oath –  to abide by and uphold the laws of the land — as part of his becoming the King.

    Like in many other parts of the world including India too it was believed historically in Britain that the King is divinely appointed by God or is God’s human representative on Earth.

    Roughly 80 MPs and peers, members of the House of Lords, have received invitations to attend the function besides other heads of states and dignitaries.

    The two hour long ceremony would have about 2,000 odd invitees compared to 8,000 guests at Queen Elizabeth II coronation.

    The coronation day starts with a procession from Buckingham Palace to Westminster Abbey in the Gold State Coach. This coach has been used at every coronation since William IV’s in 1831.

    After the service at the Abbey there is traditionally a procession through the streets of London. This allows as many people as possible to see the newly crowned monarch.

    The Queen consort will also be crowned  (with Queen Mary’s crown) along with the king in a similar but simpler ceremony. She is anointed and crowned and receives a smaller version of the Sceptre with the Cross.

    [ad_2]
    #Anointment #Prince #Charles #monarch #deeply #religious

    ( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

  • Unending story of Prince Mukarram Jah; could he have been the Caliph of Muslim world?

    Unending story of Prince Mukarram Jah; could he have been the Caliph of Muslim world?

    [ad_1]

    Hyderabad: Like the famous Thousand and One Night (Alf Laila wa Laila) unending episodes, stories from the enigmatic treasure trough of Prince Mukarram Jah keep tumbling out.

    One is more intriguing than the previous one.

    Alexander Azam Jah, the son of his second wife, Australian Helen, was conspicuous by his absence during his funeral.

    MS Education Academy

    He has not shown up in Hyderabad since.

    A ceremony was held in Khilwat Palace (also known as Chowmohalla Palace) where perhaps only one of the oldest loyalists of the Nizam family, Kumari Indira Devi Dharaj Girji was seen honouring the Ninth Nizam Azmat Jah on his coronation.

    A few days after the ceremony, the traditional family acrimony came out in public.  One of the late Mukarram Jah’s cousins said the family members would not give up on the cases that had been filed in the courts of law against the Eighth Nizam. “We will continue the fight against the injustice done to us,” he said firmly.

    Still, a few days later, one of the members of the House of Asaf Jah, prompted by a section of Sahebzada’s, Raunaq Yar Khan, declared himself the Ninth Nizam. He now claims that he has some documents to back his “rightful” place.

    Mukarram Jah married Jameela Boularous of Morocco in 1992 and divorced her within a year or two.  The reasons for this short-lived association are shrouded in stories that cannot be confirmed. However, the couple had a daughter Zairin Unnisa Begum known in short as Zairin. She was born in 1994.

    Intriguingly, John Zubrzycki, the Australian who wrote the book The last Nizam, chronicling the life of Prince Mukarram Jah does not acknowledge Jameela as his wife and does not mention Zairin as his daughter.  Zubrzycki on the other hand gives the names of four women as the wives of the Prince. Says he, “Jah leaves behind four children – Azmet his eldest son and a daughter Shekhyar by his first wife Ezra; Azam his son by his second wife, Helen; and Nilofer by his fourth wife Manolya Onur…” He skips the mention of the third one, who over she was.

    The story of Zairin becomes more intriguing because she and her mother were not there during the funeral of the Prince who was a little less than 90 years when he passed away in Istanbul, Turkey. His body was brought to Hyderabad and given a gun salute by the government of Telangana State before he was laid to rest at the Asaf Jahi graveyard located within the premises of the historical Makkah Masjid.  

    A few days ago Zairin and her mother arrived in Hyderabad and besides attending numerous functions, held an exhibition of paintings and photographs mainly of Sultan Abdul Majid and the Prince. There were two paintings that caught my attention.

    One was a letter purportedly written by the Sultan and the other by the last Nizam Osman Ali Khan. 

    Syed Ahmad Khan, the editor of Rahnum-e-Deccan an Urdu daily published from Hyderabad, says that he found the letters of Sultan Abdul Majeed and that of Osman Ali Khan in the archives of his newspaper as late as 2021. 

    The first letter purportedly written by the Sultan declared Osman Ali Khan as an interim Caliph in his place. The letter was addressed to Osman Ali Khan. It has a date on it. It also has the names of several other people.

    The second letter is written by Osman Ali Khan and addressed to one Col. Syed Mohammad Amir Uddin Khan wherein he tells him how the Caliph has handed him over the caliphate.  He also asks him to deliver the letter to the ‘rightful’ successor of Imam Mahdi, whom a section of the Muslims believed would arrive in the last days of this world.  

    These intriguing letters have brought the entire visit of Zairin and her mother into the circle of more doubts.   

    Syed Ahmad Khan, says that he discovered the letters some two years ago.  He does not explain why he did not disclose their existence to the family of Mukarram Jah or the Hyderabad public. He did not even bring them to the notice of Prince Muffakham Jah, the younger brother of Mukarram Jah who frequently visits Hyderabad. He could have made them public and allowed some experts to scrutinize the documents.

    A Hyderabad-based historian who does not wish to be identified said, “The second document has no date. If there was a gap of some years between these letters how is the paper and the ink appear to be the same as if both were written at the same time.”

    I have my doubts too.  Why is the existence of these letters not known to anyone of some consequence in Hyderabad or anywhere else? For instance, the immediate family members of Mukarram Jah or those who were close to him for decades had no clue about them. My second doubt is this. When Osman Ali Khan had declared that the son born to Azam Jah and Durrushehvar will be entitled to Caliphate why he did not accept the offer given by Abdul Majeed?

    I, as a long-standing journalist who is interested in the history, culture, and politics of Hyderabad, demand that a judicious inquiry be held over the authenticity of these letters and that the public be made aware of the results of any such investigation.

    I leave the claims of Zairin and her mother to the family and legitimate heir of the late Prince. Intriguingly, no family member of the late Mukarram Jah worth the name has responded to the sudden appearance of Zairin on the Royal horizon of the former Hyderabad State. 

    Mir Ayoob Ali Khan is a seasoned journalist based in Hyderabad

    [ad_2]
    #Unending #story #Prince #Mukarram #Jah #Caliph #Muslim #world

    ( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

  • Prince Harry and the return of the phone hacking scandal – podcast

    [ad_1]

    Support The Guardian

    The Guardian is editorially independent.
    And we want to keep our journalism open and accessible to all.
    But we increasingly need our readers to fund our work.

    Support The Guardian

    [ad_2]
    #Prince #Harry #return #phone #hacking #scandal #podcast
    ( With inputs from : www.theguardian.com )

  • Has time run out for Prince Harry’s case against Murdoch press?

    Has time run out for Prince Harry’s case against Murdoch press?

    [ad_1]

    Prince Harry’s attempt to arrange a high court showdown with Rupert Murdoch’s newspaper company depends on one thing: did the prince meet a deadline to file his legal paperwork?

    This week’s legal hearing at the high court in London has been full of fresh revelations about the relationship between royalty and the media. There have been claims that Prince William struck a secret phone-hacking settlement with Murdoch’s company for a “huge” sum of money; that King Charles tried to stop Harry’s legal cases so he could get favourable coverage in the Sun; and that Piers Morgan was aware Diana, Princess of Wales had been illegally targeted by his reporters.

    Harry even claims that his war on the Murdoch newspaper business had the blessing of Queen Elizabeth II, his late grandmother.

    But that does not necessarily mean he has a strong case in relation to this week’s hearing. The judge is looking at a much narrower issue, and he has already challenged Harry’s account.

    The legal argument boils down to this: when did Prince Harry fully understand that he was potentially a victim of phone hacking? And then did he start his legal claim in time?

    Murdoch’s company wants a judge to rule that the prince missed his deadline and therefore the entire case should be thrown out before going to a messy and expensive public trial.

    Claimants have six years to bring a case in the civil courts, starting from the claimed wrongdoing or the moment they were aware of the alleged illegal behaviour. As Harry’s barrister David Sherborne argued, it is easy to know exactly when you were run over by a car if you want to start a legal case against the driver. It’s harder to know when you became a victim of phone hacking.

    Harry alleges he only became aware of the full scale of phone hacking at the Sun and News of the World in 2019, shortly before he filed his claim.

    The court heard that Harry had been relatively ignorant because did not have access to the newspapers that were reporting on phone hacking allegations in the late 2000s. The prince’s barrister said: “He was on active service in Afghanistan and they didn’t have the Guardian.”

    Harry’s legal argument partly relies on the existence of a supposed secret deal between the royal household and “senior executives” at Murdoch’s company. Under the alleged deal, the royals would hold off bringing legal cases against the publisher of the Sun, in return for receiving an apology and settlement when all the other legal cases were concluded.

    The challenge is that there is apparently no written copy of the deal and leading lawyers who worked with Murdoch’s business deny any knowledge of such a deal.

    Sherborne, Harry’s lawyer, told the court that the focus should instead be on whether the leading Murdoch executives Rebekah Brooks and Robert Thomson knew about it.

    Emails from 2017 and 2018 released as part of the hearing suggest the queen was kept updated on the case, only for Thomson to fail to reply to one message for several months – suggesting the email had been “lost” in his inbox.

    When Thomson did reply, he told the royal household that he had an “understanding” that “we would wait for the civil cases to be resolved” before acting.

    Harry says he learned about the supposed secret arrangement in 2012, which Murdoch’s lawyers argue should have been the moment to bring a case and start the six-year legal countdown clock.

    Mr Justice Fancourt has already raised questions about “inconsistencies” in Harry’s paperwork, and Murdoch’s company has claimed it is “fanciful” that Harry could not have started on preliminary legal claims at an earlier date.

    Sherborne told the court that Harry took his time because evidence was concealed by the publisher of the Sun. The barrister said that if Murdoch’s company succeeded in blocking the trial, it would show that “crime does pay”.

    A judgment on whether the case can proceed is expected in July. If Harry is successful, the full trial would take place in January 2024.

    [ad_2]
    #time #run #Prince #Harrys #case #Murdoch #press
    ( With inputs from : www.theguardian.com )

  • Ivory displayed at Prince William’s palace despite his criticism of trade

    Ivory displayed at Prince William’s palace despite his criticism of trade

    [ad_1]

    For more than a decade, Prince William has spoken out vehemently against the use of ivory, calling it “a symbol of destruction, not of luxury”. The royal patron of the anti-ivory charity Tusk has lobbied leaders in China, the US and countries across Africa.

    He has even said that he wants to destroy all the ivory owned by the royals. In 2019, a spokesperson for William clarified that while destroying all the ivory in the royal collection was beyond the prince’s control, he had “ensured there is no ivory from the collection at Kensington Palace”, his place of residence.

    Prince William feeding a baby elephant at the Centre for Wildlife Rehabilitation and Conservation at Panbari Reserve Forest in Assam, India, in April 2016
    Prince William feeding a baby elephant at the Centre for Wildlife Rehabilitation and Conservation at Panbari Reserve Forest in Assam, India, in April 2016. Photograph: Adnan Abidi/AFP/Getty Images

    However, the Guardian has discovered that nine items containing ivory have been displayed at Kensington Palace since the beginning of the year. Each of them were displayed not far from Apartment 1a, the official London residence of Prince William and his family.

    The ivory on show at the palace includes a ring with a miniature portrait of George III painted onto ivory, a desk made partly of ivory and Queen Victoria’s ivory quill. A Kensington Palace exhibition earlier this year included six miniature portraits, delicately painted on to thin sheets of ivory, which was used regularly in the 18th century due to it luminosity.

    All of the items except for the ivory quill, which is privately owned by King Charles, are among a total of 1,849 ivory pieces discovered by the Guardian in a catalogue of the royal collection, an enormous trove of national heritage held in the “right of the crown”. Among the many ivory pieces are carved thrones, Fabergé ornaments, armchairs and elephants.

    Quick Guide

    What is Cost of the crown?

    Show

    4054

    Cost of the crown is an investigation into royal wealth and finances. The series, published ahead of the coronation of King Charles III, is seeking to overcome centuries of secrecy to better understand how the royal family is funded, the extent to which individual members have profited from their public roles, and the dubious origins of some of their wealth. The Guardian believes it is in the public interest to clarify what can legitimately be called private wealth, what belongs to the British people, and what, as so often is the case, straddles the two.

    • Read more about the investigation

    • Fund Guardian investigative journalism that uncovers the secrets of the powerful that we all need to know

    Photograph: Universal History Archive/Universal Images Group Editorial

    Thank you for your feedback.

    In 2016, at an event organised by the conservation charity Tusk, William stood at the podium before a crowd of campaigners and policymakers and explained that if the rate of ivory poaching continued, by the time his daughter, Princess Charlotte, was 25, “the African elephant will be gone from the wild”.

    Two of the seven portraits on ivory displayed at Kensington Palace earlier this year were of another Princess Charlotte of Wales: the daughter of King George IV.

    One of the two portraits on ivory of Princess Charlotte displayed at Kensington Palace.
    One of the two portraits on ivory of Princess Charlotte displayed at Kensington Palace. Photograph: Todd-White Art Photography/Royal collection

    Prince William’s father, King Charles, who is the patron of the royal collection, has also spoken out against the use of ivory. In a speech in 2014, with William by his side, Charles described how the illegal wildlife trade had “reached such unprecedented levels of killing and violence that it now poses a grave threat, not only to the survival of some of the world’s most treasured species but also to economic and political stability in many areas around the world”.

    This raises the question of why the king, too, has ivory at his home; in this case, a snuff bottle with an ivory handle. It is kept in the library of his palatial London residence, Clarence House.

    There are 23 ivory items on display in the ballroom in Sandringham House, the king’s privately owned residence in Norfolk. A tour guide told visitors that these items were Charles’s private property.

    Buckingham Palace declined to respond questions about the ivory on display in royal properties, saying that for “operational reasons” it would not have the capacity to answer such queries until after the king’s coronation next month.

    Throne and footstool made from ivory
    A throne and footstool made from ivory. Photograph: Royal collection

    Unlike William, the king has not gone so far as to suggest the ivory in the royal collection should be destroyed, with one palace insider reportedly saying Charles viewed his son’s comments on the matter as “naive”.

    A Guardian analysis of the royal collection identified 126 items on show in 24 palaces and museums around the UK and abroad.

    They include a pair of carved leopards looted by British forces from the kingdom of Benin in 1897 and presented to Queen Victoria. The statues are on long-term loan from the royal collection to the British Museum and are exhibited alongside the controversial Benin bronzes, which were captured by the British forces at the same time.

    Elsewhere, a model Indian temple made, in part, of ivory is on loan to a museum in Ontario, Canada.

    Opinion is divided over how art custodians should handle legacy collections of ivory. Tusk said as long as galleries and museums were “in no way glamourising the ivory trade” it was highly unlikely their displays would fuel extra demand. But Dr Mark Jones, the head of policy at the conservation charity Born Free, said ivory items should be exhibited only in exceptional circumstances and that care should be taken when they were.

    “We would urge museums and galleries to provide information to their visitors on the detrimental impacts the demand for elephant ivory has had on the conservation of elephants and the welfare of individual animals, alongside any historical information, in order to discourage further demand for ivory products,” Jones said.

    The pair of leopards, made from ivory with metal inlay, looted from the kingdom of Benin
    The pair of leopards, made from ivory with metal inlay, looted from the kingdom of Benin. Photograph: De Agostini Picture Library/Getty Images

    While the royal collection’s online catalogue logs items made of ivory, there is no mention on the website of any concerns or controversies surrounding the material. And there is no such information accompanying the public displays of ivory at royal palaces or residences, including Windsor Castle.

    Close to half a million people visited the castle in 2021-22, taking in the treasures inside. Those included 12 items made of ivory, the most striking of which is the elaborately carved ivory throne, which takes pride of place in the Garter Throne Room. There is no information about the animal cruelty that created it on show anywhere in the palace.

    William’s 2019 commitment to ensuring no ivory would be on display at Kensington Palace was made to the former Lib Dem MP Norman Baker, the author of a book on the royals. “I was given the clear indication that William found these ivory items distasteful and as soon as he was in a position to do so they would be disposed of,” he said. “I’m perplexed that they haven’t been.”

    With respect to the king’s personal ownership of ivory, Baker said: “If you make statements saying that you don’t want ivory and then he has ivory in his own collection, that’s the definition of hypocrisy.”

    A spokesperson for the Royal Collection Trust said “it is to be expected” that a collection of its size would include ivory but that, in keeping with international regulations, no modern ivory was used in the conservation of those works.

    They added: “Works of art in the official royal residences (including Windsor Castle) and historic royal palaces (including Kensington Palace) are not generally labelled as they are displayed as part of historic interiors, rather than a museum display.”

    Visitors wanting more information, the spokesperson said, could visit the collection’s website, consult an onsite guidebook or speak to a warden.

    [ad_2]
    #Ivory #displayed #Prince #Williams #palace #criticism #trade
    ( With inputs from : www.theguardian.com )

  • ‘Set up for failure’: the wild story behind the car crash interview which destroyed Prince Andrew

    ‘Set up for failure’: the wild story behind the car crash interview which destroyed Prince Andrew

    [ad_1]

    A Pizza Express in Woking. The inability to sweat. A tendency to be “too honourable”. Prince Andrew’s 2019 Newsnight interview was a bonanza of bizarre excuses – in which he disastrously tried to defend himself from allegations that he had sex with a 17-year-old girl trafficked by his friend Jeffrey Epstein. Greeted with a riot of disbelief, anger and meme-making by the public, it was the most explosive royal interview of the decade. But how on Earth did it happen in the first place?

    A new documentary, airing as part of Channel 4’s alternative coronation coverage, is lifting the lid on this remarkably misguided interview. But Andrew: The Problem Prince kicks off with an entirely different TV appearance. It’s 1985 and the prince is primarily known as a pin-up, playboy and the Falklands hero who risked his life for his country. He is also known as Randy Andy, a nickname referenced by his interviewer on this occasion, a giggling Selina Scott. Andrew shrugs it off with remarkably easy charm and humour. The audience howls in approval. “It was a badge of honour then – the idea of this young prince cutting a swathe through the aristocratic women of London was something to be admired,” says James Goldston, former president of ABC News and one of the documentary’s producers. “There was zero conversation at the time about: are there ethical or moral issues involved in this?”

    Fast-forward three decades and Sam McAlister, a guest booker on Newsnight, receives an email from a PR company offering an interview with Prince Andrew about his charity work. She declines on the grounds that it sounds like a puff piece, but the exchange prompts months of negotiations about a more wide-ranging interview, which is again rejected by McAlister because the palace has a single stipulation: all questions about convicted paedophile and financier Jeffrey Epstein are off the table.

    But then Epstein is found dead in his New York prison cell. Until that point, the man Newsnight’s Emily Maitlis describes as “America’s Jimmy Savile” had been a peripheral figure in the public consciousness: now he is centre stage, and the prince’s friendship with him is under the media’s microscope. Eventually, Andrew’s team change their minds. McAlister – whose book Scoops: The BBC’s Most Shocking Interviews from Steven Seagal to Prince Andrew, was the inspiration for this documentary – can barely believe her luck.

    Emily Maitlis.
    Emily Maitlis. Photograph: Channel 4

    It only gets weirder from there. Andrew brings his daughter Beatrice to a meeting with McAlister and Maitlis. He seems delighted after the interview, inviting the Newsnight team to stick around for a cinema night at Buckingham Palace. It’s only when the Queen receives the transcript, and Andrew receives a “tap on the shoulder” from the palace (according to Maitlis), that the catastrophe becomes clear to him. The interview then prompts Virginia Giuffre – who claims the prince had sex with her on several occasions when she was 17 – to pursue Andrew legally. The lawyers interviewed for the documentary “are very specific”, says Goldston. “What he said opened the door to bringing that legal action which ultimately destroyed him.” In 2022, Andrew settled out of court.

    Andrew: The Problem Prince is expressly not a “hatchet job”, says Sheldon Lazarus, another of the programme’s producers. Instead, it’s an attempt to anchor Andrew’s behaviour and decisions within the broader context of his life: despite his status and knack for making headlines, Lazarus believes there has never been an in-depth documentary about him before. We hear how the Queen indulged him as a child, and how Andrew’s finances meant he could never afford the lavish life he had become accustomed to. While Charles had an annual income of £20m, Andrew had to make do with a yearly allowance of £249,000 from the Queen. “By most standards that’s a lot of money, but to live a royal lifestyle, it’s obviously not enough. You feel that he’s being set up for failure,” says Goldston.

    Queen Elizabeth II with her sons: Prince Edward next to her, and Prince Charles and Prince Andrew behind, in 1976.
    Queen Elizabeth II with her sons: Prince Edward next to her, and Prince Charles and Prince Andrew behind, in 1976. Photograph: Anwar Hussein/Getty Images

    One of the most notorious moments in the Newsnight interview sees Maitlis ask Andrew whether he regrets consorting with Epstein. No, he replies, because the opportunities he got from it “were actually very useful”. According to Lazarus, the producers found themselves asking a question: “If he had been wealthier, would he have made better decisions, and not got into this crowd in order to keep up with the Joneses – or the Windsors?”

    Tonally, the documentary team had to tread carefully. While the Newsnight interview was inescapably comic in content, its subject was a set of extremely serious and disturbing crimes. “I think you can use humour in the most serious of circumstances, as long as it’s done appropriately,” says Goldston, whose other job at the time was overseeing the coverage of the January 6 committee hearings in Washington DC.

    skip past newsletter promotion

    After all, much of what goes on with the royals veers between farce and something far more troubling. One of the standout moments from the documentary is an interview with the former – yet still palpably annoyed – deputy British ambassador in Bahrain, who recounts Andrew’s freewheeling and ultimately very damaging input as a trade envoy in the early 2000s. “I love the line that ultimately his boss is the Queen – there was just no accountability,” says Lazarus. The diplomat also tells of how the prince refused to stay in ambassadorial residences, instead hiring out luxury hotels to house his thank-you letter-writer and valet.

    The Problem Prince isn’t just about the titular royal, however. It’s “a celebration of the power of journalism,” says Goldston, who admits to feeling “kind of jealous” about the Newsnight scoop at the time. It’s also an insight into a rather mysterious job: that of the celebrity booker. “I’ve worked in journalism for 30 years and been involved in a lot of big gets: presidents, prime ministers, celebrities,” he says. “The art of the booking has always fascinated me – how does that happen?” Goldston ran Good Morning America “at the height of the morning wars and watched these bookers go after these things every day. It’s a phenomenal feat of endurance.”

    It’s a world Lazarus is also familiar with, having started his career booking guests for Paula Yates’s On the Bed segment on Channel 4’s The Big Breakfast – a job he admits wasn’t beholden to the same journalistic ethics as Newsnight. “I definitely wouldn’t have said no to Andrew,” he says. “He could have come and juggled – he could have done whatever he wanted!”

    The documentary provides an intimate insight into the big-name interview, but its headline question – why Andrew decided to appear on Newsnight in the first place – is ultimately left unanswered. Maitlis suggests it may have been an attempt to clear his name for his daughters’ sake, while Goldston thinks the media pressure meant “he was going to have to confront it head on and that’s how they end up saying yes”. That, however, doesn’t explain why he went against the guidance of trusted advisers, including media lawyer Paul Tweed, who claims in the documentary that he warned Andrew not to do it.

    Instead, you come away with the sense that it was driven by a heady cocktail of yes-men-powered delusion and extreme naivety (he was “not intellectual”, according to royal biographer Andrew Lownie, while Tina Brown’s The Palace Papers claims that Epstein called the prince “an idiot”). Yet this cluelessness wasn’t limited to Andrew himself. Goldston recalls McAlister telling him that as the interview concluded, a member of the prince’s staff leaned over to her and muttered, “‘Isn’t he marvellous?’ That lack of understanding of what had just happened was pretty profound.”

    The documentary ends with a portrait of an underemployed Andrew living in the shadows. And yet Tweed, who appears in the documentary with the blessing of the prince and his family, suggests something that seems currently unthinkable: the idea that the prince might make a return to public life. Is there any world in which this could happen?

    “I think they live in hope that they can still turn this round, which is actually a very interesting idea,” says Goldston. “[Tweed] has seen a lot of these cases. Who knows?” Never say never, but if the royal family wants to survive until the next coronation, it seems that Andrew – utterly tone-deaf, entitled beyond belief and morally dubious, at best – is everything it must leave behind.

    Andrew: The Problem Prince airs on Channel 4 on 1 May at 9pm.

    [ad_2]
    #Set #failure #wild #story #car #crash #interview #destroyed #Prince #Andrew
    ( With inputs from : www.theguardian.com )

  • As Prince Harry battles the press, why have the other royals given up the fight? | Zoe Williams

    As Prince Harry battles the press, why have the other royals given up the fight? | Zoe Williams

    [ad_1]

    Prince Harry has long alleged that the royal family – “the Institution”, as he calls it – is locked in a trap of appeasement with the tabloid media. In their Netflix documentary, both he and Meghan talked about how they were savaged by the redtops, while the palace made no attempt to curtail their racist insinuations. In his memoir Spare, and interviews around it, Harry accused Camilla of leaking stories about him in order to massage her own reputation.

    Last month, in papers filed to the high court as part of his case against News Group Newspapers, who publish the Sun, Prince Harry claimed members of the royal family struck a secret deal over the circumstances in which it would sue over phone hacking. News Group denies that and says there is no evidence to support that claim. But claims made by Harry in court documents this week go even further: that in 2020, Prince William was paid a “very large sum of money” by Rupert Murdoch to settle a phone-hacking case out of court.

    There are elements of this saga that make no sense – chiefly, if William was paid, what would he need a “very large sum of money” for? In all the privations of his role – of privacy, of self-determination – surely the one thing he’s not short of is a bob or two? But mostly, this appears to be an entirely familiar tale: blackmail of the royals by sections of the print media, diverging from regular extortion only in the respect that it’s happening in plain view, its currency not cash but compliance. This dynamic has always, until Harry took it on, appeared to be impossible to fight.

    Tampongate, in 1993, was the moment the gloves really came off in the battle with the media. Sure, maybe there was a public interest case that people ought to know about Charles and Camilla’s affair, but it wasn’t necessary to transcribe this incredibly intimate, embarrassing conversation between them – especially as the affair was already common knowledge. This was a calculated humiliation, and it’s hard to see what the legal recourse would have been for the then Prince Charles, given that the contents of the tape had already surfaced in an Australian weekly.

    A man holding up Sun newspaper with Harry and Meghan on the front
    Photograph: Facundo Arrizabalaga/EPA

    The attitude of the tabloids was brazen: they would perform their elaborate patriotism, revel in the flag-waving, genuflect before the royals, while at the same time never missing an opportunity to heap shame on them. They never saw any moral contradiction between these completely dichotomous stances of respect and contempt, because they weren’t a moral agent, they were a newspaper, whose only logic is to sell itself. Periodically, some huffing royal watcher would be wheeled out to square the circle, with the line that it was the Queen they felt sorry for, her dignity undermined by the capers of her children.

    If the 1993 debacle had established the tabloids as amoral, and left the royals petrified of taking them on, the years of phone hacking that followed destroyed trust within the family. This is a story familiar to many who were hacked by the News of the World: unable to figure out where the papers were getting their intelligence, victims accused those around them. Jude Law knows, now, that Sadie Frost wasn’t leaking details of their divorce.

    Should Harry maybe give Camilla the benefit of the doubt, given that per his own testimony, multiple members of the family were being hacked? Perhaps. But it’s always been quite fundamental to the tabloids’ power that, in the absence of a fresh scandal, they can generate a propulsive narrative by pitting one member of the family against another – Diana against Camilla, Kate against Meghan, William against Harry, bold splashes of black and white in which the reader is invited to pick their team. You would have to be quite a solid royal crew to resist, particularly if you had no way of knowing where the information was coming from, and no way of correcting untruth.

    Harry is now pursuing three separate legal cases against British newspaper groups in a move of either bravery or slash-and-burn recklessness. He may think the press has done its worst: revealed under infra-redtop every stain on his character, from the Nazi fancy dress to the stint in rehab; essentially exiled his wife by repeatedly alluding to her fictional gangster roots, not to mention hounded his mother to her untimely death.

    But there is no hard limit to the reputational damage a person can sustain when he is by definition remote, a figurehead, and when he moves through the world an uneasy amalgam of his own personal qualities and the mutable associations of his position. Newspapers haven’t even needed a smoking gun, just an absence of positive stories, the odd insinuation of greed or attention-seeking: Harry and Meghan’s popularity has been tanking in the UK and went off a cliff in the US.

    I think, in the long run, it will be worth it: in two years’ time we won’t be able to remember what we were supposed to dislike about the couple. But even if that turns out not to be true, you have to wonder what a reputation is worth, with Murdoch’s and other empires holding it hostage.

    • Zoe Williams is a Guardian columnist

    • Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.

    [ad_2]
    #Prince #Harry #battles #press #royals #fight #Zoe #Williams
    ( With inputs from : www.theguardian.com )

  • Charles undermined late queen’s plan to sue News UK, Prince Harry tells court

    Charles undermined late queen’s plan to sue News UK, Prince Harry tells court

    [ad_1]

    Queen Elizabeth II personally threatened Rupert Murdoch’s media company with legal proceedings over phone hacking only for her efforts to be undermined by the then Prince Charles, the high court has heard.

    Prince Harry said his father intervened because he wanted to ensure the Sun supported his ascension to the throne and Camilla’s role as queen consort, and had a “specific long-term strategy to keep the media on side” for “when the time came”.

    The Duke of Sussex made the claims on Tuesday as part of his ongoing legal action against News Group Newspapers. The legal case lays bare Harry’s allegations of the deals between senior members of the British royal family and tabloid newspapers.

    The prince said his father, the king, had personally demanded he stop his legal cases against British newspaper outlets when they were filed in late 2019.

    The court filings state: “I was summoned to Buckingham Palace and specifically told to drop the legal actions because they have an ‘effect on all the family’.” He added this was “a direct request (or rather demand) from my father” and senior royal aides.

    Harry blamed tabloid press intrusion for collapses in his mental health, said journalists had destroyed many of his relationships with girlfriends, and said British tabloid journalists fuelled online trolls and drove people to suicide.

    He said: “How much more blood will stain their typing fingers before someone can put a stop to this madness?”

    The duke also suggested that press intrusion by the Sun and other newspapers led to his mother – Diana, Princess of Wales – choosing to travel without a police escort, ultimately leading to her death in 1997.

    In 2017, Harry decided to seek an apology from Murdoch’s News UK for phone hacking, receiving the backing of Queen Elizabeth II and his brother. His submission said: “William was very understanding and supportive and agreed that we needed to do it. He therefore suggested that I seek permission from ‘granny’. I spoke to her shortly afterwards and said something along the lines of: ‘Are you happy for me to push this forward, do I have your permission?’ and she said: ‘Yes.’”

    Having received the support of Queen Elizabeth II, Harry said he asked the royal family’s lawyers to write to the Murdoch executives Rebekah Brooks and Robert Thomson and seek a resolution. Yet the company refused to apologise and, out of desperation, Harry discussed banning reporters from Murdoch-owned outlets from attending his wedding to Meghan, Duchess of Sussex.

    In 2018, Sally Osman, Queen Elizabeth II’s communications secretary, wrote an email to Harry explaining that she was willing to threaten legal action in the name of the monarch.

    The email read: “The queen has given her consent to send a further note, by email, to Robert Thomson, CEO of News Corporation and Rebekah Brooks, CEO of News UK.

    “Her Majesty has approved the wording, which essentially says there is increasing frustration at their lack of response and engagement and, while we’ve tried to settle without involving lawyers, we will need to reconsider our stance unless we receive a viable proposal.”

    However, there was no apology, which Harry ascribes to a secret deal between the royal family and senior Murdoch executives to keep proceedings out of court. As part of the legal proceedings he alleged that his brother, Prince William, had secretly been paid a “huge sum of money” by Murdoch’s company in 2020 to settle a previously undisclosed phone-hacking claim.

    Harry claimed that, shortly before his wedding, he was informed Murdoch’s company would not apologise to the queen and the rest of the royal family at that stage because “they would have to admit that not only was the News of the World involved in phone hacking but also the Sun”, which they “couldn’t afford to do” as it would undermine their continued denials that illegal activity took place at the Sun.

    Murdoch’s company has always denied that any illegal behaviour took place at the Sun and that all phone hacking and illicit blagging of personal material was limited to its sister newspaper, the now-defunct News of the World.

    Harry insists this is untrue and claims phone hacking was widespread at the Sun when it was edited by Brooks, now a senior Murdoch executive. He has said he is willing to go to trial in an attempt to prove this. Murdoch’s company denies any wrongdoing at the Sun, or that there was any secret deal between the newspaper group and the royal household over phone hacking.

    The prince also said press intrusion into the life of his mother was “one of the reasons she insisted on not having any protection after the divorce” as she suspected those around her of selling stories to outlets such as the Sun. He claims: “If she’d had police protection with her in August 1997, she’d probably still be alive today. People who abuse their power like this need to face the consequences of their actions, otherwise it says that we can all behave like this.”

    Harry now believes his father and royal courtiers were prioritising positive coverage of his father and Camilla in the Sun, rather than seeking to back his legal claims. He said: “[T]hey had a specific long-term strategy to keep the media (including [Sun publisher] NGN) onside in order to smooth the way for my stepmother (and father) to be accepted by the British public as queen consort (and king respectively) when the time came … anything that might upset the applecart in this regard (including the suggestion of resolution of our phone-hacking claims) was to be avoided at all costs.”

    He said all of his girlfriends would find “they are not just in a relationship with me but with the entire tabloid press as a third party”, leading to bouts of depression and paranoia. He claimed the press was pushing him in the hope of “a total and very public breakdown”.

    He made clear his personal loathing of Brooks, who was found not guilty of phone hacking by a jury in June 2014. He said: “Having met her once with my father when she was hosting the Sun military awards at the Imperial War Museum in London and having seen her essentially masquerading as someone that she wasn’t by using the military community to try and cover up all the appalling things that she and her newspapers had done, I felt this surprise at her acquittal even more personally, especially as I had been duped into thinking that she was OK at our meeting.”

    [ad_2]
    #Charles #undermined #late #queens #plan #sue #News #Prince #Harry #tells #court
    ( With inputs from : www.theguardian.com )