#david beckham biography

[ranjith11]

David Beckham's Life Story: The Premier League's Golden Boy Reveals All!

🥅⚽️ In this captivating video, we delve deep into The Career of David Beckham. Join us on a journey through the life of a football legend who made history on and off the field. From his humble beginnings to his rise as an iconic figure, we uncover the untold stories and secrets that shaped his extraordinary journey. Explore how David Beckham became a symbol of inspiration and dedication, leaving a remarkable impact on the world of football and beyond. Prepare to be inspired by his incredible achievements and the lessons he's left for us all.

[santoshkukreti04-blog]

डेविड बेकहम बायोग्राफी: David Beckham जिनका पूरा नाम 'डेविड रॉबर्ट जोसेफ बेकहम' इंग्लैंड के एक भूतपूर्व पेशेवर अपनी पीढ़ी के महानतम फुटबॉलर साथ ही 2000 से 2006 तक अंग्रेजी राष्ट्रीय टीम के कप्तान थे। वर्तमान अध्यक्ष और' इंटर मियामी सीएफ' के सह-मालिक और 'सैलफोर्ड सिटी' के सह-मालिक हैं। बेकहम का जन्म 2 मई 1975 को लेटनस्टोन, लंदन, इंग्लैंड में हुआ था।

[anonymoushouseplantfan]

Tom Bower has all of the details about the Beckham v Sussex fallout. The Beckham even loaned their Beverly Hills mansion to Meghan before the wedding! Details on the fashion freebies and favours demanded, the delicious fact that what Meghan wore didn't sell, Harry refusing to meet David in Australia when he flew in to support Invictus...

This is amazing stuff. Of course, he's currently writing a biography of David Beckham so his sources will be impeccable.

,

https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/23364397/meghan-ordered-prince-harry-snub-david-beckham/

Thanks! I think we knew or suspected this is how it went down. I’m glad it’s confirmed that Meghan wearing an item had little effect on product sales. Also glad they confirm most of the “sold out” products involved very small quantities. Very awkward having this come out as she’s hustling for new deals. Also, wow, that Australian tour was even more of a disaster than I thought.

A prior anon suggested that their desperate flight from the family was motivated by a general sense of failure. I feel like that’s correct. The press was hyping them so much that people thought they were wildly successful, but all that hype was not reflected in polling number, product sales, or charity donations, as many of us pointed out at the time.

Now it’s coming out that their “wins” (because Harry getting Beckham to the Invictus games was a huge win for him at the time) were not all that either.

[beatasticband]

9 people you would like to get to know better I was tagged by @leatherpearlslace , thanks :D

1. 3 ships: the santa maria, the cutty sark, the mayflower

2. first ever ship: erm, Noah's Ark?

3. last song: Breathe- PINK FLOYD

4. last movie: King Richard, really good

5. currently reading; a Slayer biography

6. currently watching; the David Beckham documentary

7. currently consuming; Jim Beam Red Stag and coke

8. currently craving; sleep tagging: @another-brick-inthewall @cultofpers0nality @disney-eyes @justmakesuresheeatsthemouse @betterinthe90s @worldofpotsandpans @floating-in-waves @taildevouress @graveyard-smash

[saintmeghanmarkle]

How Beckham got revenge on Harry for Markle snub by u/wordscapesx

How Beckham got ‘revenge’ on Harry for Markle snub https://ift.tt/dO7wE6Q explosive new biography of the Beckhams revealed how David got revenge on Harry after Meghan Markle “ordered” him to snub the footballer at the Invictus Games..As always, if a dupe, let me know and I'll remove. I didn't see it anywhere. post link: https://ift.tt/S6PEqz0 author: wordscapesx submitted: June 28, 2024 at 04:50PM via SaintMeghanMarkle on Reddit disclaimer: all views + opinions expressed by the author of this post, as well as any comments and reblogs, are solely the author's own; they do not necessarily reflect the views of the administrator of this Tumblr blog. For entertainment only.

[heartofstanding]

What's the tea on Ian mortimer? What are his crazy takes?

Where do I begin?? @qqueenofhades has discussed his issues as a historian a few times (see here, here and here) as has @oldshrewsburyian​ (here). I definitely recommend looking at the comments and replies in both of them for more tea too. And apologies for taking so long to reply and for the sheer length.

The most infamous thing he's done is reassess the evidence of Edward II's death and argue that Edward did not in fact die but his death was "faked" and he was living on the European continent for some time afterwards. The evidence is intriguing but far from definitive, despite what Mortimer and his followers (e.g. Kathryn Warner) think, and with such an incredible claim, scepticism is natural. Mortimer's attitude is that he, the Great Historian, has discovered The Definitive Truth and that there is a conspiracy amongst academic historians against him to prevent the Truth from becoming accept and he being hailed as the genius as he really is. He has an "essay" on his website in which he compares himself to Galileo (!) and those who were mocked for doubting the existence of Weapons of Mass Destruction in the lead-up to the Iraq invasion (!!) and compares W. Mark Ormrod's position on the theory to - and I shit you not - people who refuse to accept allegations of child sex abuse because the abuser isn't like that (!!!). This, by the way, is in competition with another essay on his website for the most rancid hot takes.

I've only looked at his Edward III biography in passing but he does accuse Philippa of Hainault of adultery. Because Edmund of Langley was born two weeks too early to be carried to term. One might say that the most logical explanation was a premature baby but I suppose that isn't dramatic enough. I'm more familiar with his work on Henry IV and Henry V, unfortunately.

His biography of Henry IV works along the premise that this is a (supposedly) innovative not conventional biography, it's an attempt to view Henry's times and peers through Henry's eyes. This is a problematic concept. Firstly, it involves prioritising the judgement of one man and excluding everyone else's perspective. Secondly, the evidence just isn't there to give us Henry's perspective without relying on masses of supposition and speculation and in the end, the Henry found in Mortimer's work is a fiction. Thirdly, Mortimer's version of Henry is idealised to the extreme.

Everything Henry does is right. He is Heroic, Manly and Good. The dubiously legal and disastrously unpopular execution of Archbishop Scrope proves Henry was "decisive" (that Scrope became an immensely popular martyr-saint and Henry believed to have contracted leprosy in punishment, that Henry fell out with one of his closest allies and was excommunicated by the Pope over his actions means nothing). Mortimer also basically brushes off Henry's involvement and compliance in the introduction of de heretico comburendo law, allowing heretics to be burnt at the stake.

Richard II is reimagined as a rather pathetic pantomime villain, one who is pathologically but deservedly jealous of Henry (after all, who wouldn't be?). We are constantly informed of how Richard wasn't manly (unlike Henry who was the manliest man to ever man), wasn't heroic (unlike Henry who was the most heroic hero to ever hero), who wasn't sporty or a statesman (unlike Henry who Mortimer elsewhere compares to a combination of David Beckham and Winston Churchill but better). Richard's mother was an embarrassing slut (unlike Henry's perfect mother who was the dead epitome of courtly romance and therefore not an embarrassment), Richard had no children (unlike the virile and manly Henry who had a cartload) and how Richard was the grandson of an executed traitor (unlike Henry who was the grandson of a military hero)* and so on. In other words, Mortimer's attempt to flesh Richard and Henry as individuals is actually an endless dick-measuring competition in which Richard inevitably loses and Henry inevitably scores off the charts. This, of course, is the sole reason why Richard didn't like Henry. Not that Henry had committed treason against him in the Appellant Crisis, nope. He was just jealous that Henry had the bigger penis.

There are some truly bizarre leaps of logic. According to Mortimer, Richard attempted to murder Henry by... leaving him in the Tower of London during the Peasants Revolt in 1381. This presupposes that Richard had both knowledge that it would be invaded and sacked during his absence (he was meeting the rebels in person at the time) and was a psychopath who was happy putting everyone in the Tower at risk of murder, rape and violence, including his own mother (though I must suppose that Mortimer believes Joan of Kent was "embarrassing" enough to be acceptable collateral damage). Nor is there any evidence Richard evilly masterminded the invasion of the Tower. The story that Richard attempted to strike William Courtenay, Archbishop of Canterbury becomes a murder attempt in Mortimer's hand - an attempt that Mortimer's Henry frets over in fear of Richard murdering him. William Courtenay's perspective is naturally excluded from Mortimer's retelling (the only time he's mentioned by name is in the index) but it's worth noting that he went on to have a good relationship with Richard.

Everyone is considered mere fodder for the story of Henry's greatness. They are given no subjectivity; their own lives and actions revolve around Henry. Mortimer tells us how brave Henry was in returning to England in 1399 to confront Richard because Richard had his son hostage and could kill. Not one thought is given to the perspective to Henry's 12 year old son whose life was endangered by Henry's actions.** Mortimer composes a melodramatic recreation of how Henry must have found out about the death of his eldest daughter, Blanche, with the lens steadfastly focused on Henry's pain. It's not Blanche that's important here, or the grief of her husband and father-in-law whose letters Mortimer quotes from to set the scene. It's Henry.

Blanche's life matters so little to Mortimer that he didn't even get the details of her death right.The letters that he quotes from explicitly tell us how she died and it was from a fever, not childbirth. They make mention of taking comfort in her son (Ruprecht, born three years earlier) but no mention of her going into premature labour or suffering a stillbirth or miscarriage. Did he even read them or was he just cherry picking quotes to frame his discussion of Henry's manly suffering?

Moving on to his Henry V biography. And it is painful. Mortimer is playing the innovative historian again and this time, rather than give Henry V's life in full, he gives us a day-by-day accounting of one year in Henry V's reign, 1415, before concluding with a chapter full of pseudo-psychological reasoning to go "and that's why Henry V sucks!"

In limiting himself to one year, he gives little attention to Henry V's upbringing and adolescence and can neither properly assess the successes and failures of Henry's reign in full. He even talks about how his approach means that "negative evidence counts as evidence!" yet little consideration is given to the prospect that the years before or after 1415 might provide a wealth of information that contradicts his conclusion. Here's Nigel Saul on Mortimer's approach:

...to form an overall view of Henry's achievement, we need to look at the King's actions during the whole of his reign, and we should not, as Mortimer does here, brush aside Henry's concern for justice on the basis of failings in 1415 without taking into account the stern justice he administered in the Midlands in the previous year. Mortimer himself, in the concluding chapter of his book, admits the limitations of his method. He says we "need to get away from the day-to-day details of the year, stop criticizing him for every niggling failure, and picture the man's vision and achievements in relation to his time." This is a surprising, belated, admission, and one wonders why he places such faith in his method in the first place.

Mortimer also takes a similar approach to Henry V as he did in his Henry IV biography. Not in the sense that he's trying to see the world through Henry V's eyes and thus everything is sympathetic. But in the sense that his version of Henry V is a fictional creation made up of Mortimer's suppositions, gut-feelings and speculation but this time, it's more of a case of "make up a guy to get mad at" than "here's my Marty-Stu". And really, the "make up a guy" part is startlingly obvious when you get into his claims.

So the most balls-to-the-wall, insane thing Mortimer does is declare that Henry V's motto une sanz pluis ("once and no more") "almost certainly comes from a medieval French version of Homer's Iliad" and "the arrogance of the message is quite breathtaking". The precise bit of the Iliad is from the second book, lines 204-5 (Mortimer's own translation: "as for having several lords, I see no good therein / let one and no more be the master, and that alone be the king") and for Mortimer it confirms that Henry was an authoritative, if not absolute, if not tyrannical ruler. All very ingenious detective work, right?

Nope.

There is no evidence that Henry V had any access to any version of the Iliad, much less sourced his motto from it. Homer wasn't widely read in the Middle Ages. At all. Like, authors like Dante Alighieri and Geoffrey Chaucer? Did not read Homer. Mortimer doesn't provide any evidence to back up his claim. He doesn't refer to a manuscript that existed in the Middle Ages, let alone one Henry V might have owned or accounts showing Henry V connected with a "medieval French version" of the Iliad. His sole footnote for this argument contains the reference to the lines, not to any edition of the Iliad, and a single note about how non-standardised spelling. In other words, Mortimer provides no evidence or explanation for his claim, just baldly states this is so. But it's even worse than it first appears.

"Unfortunately for this argument," Malcolm Vale writes, "there was no 'medieval French version of Homer's Iliad' and Henry could have never 'heard it in French'." The first known French translation of The Iliad appeared in 1545. Henry V came to the throne in 1413. He died in 1422. And that French Iliad doesn't render those lines like Henry's motto. Henry would have had to wait until 1574 for that. (Vale also notes that this 1574 Iliad translation takes a very different approach to ruling that Mortimer supposes Henry V took). In short: Ian Mortimer made up? misrepresented? relied on dodgy information? something to show how "arrogant" and tyrannical Henry V was.

But that's just the tip of the iceberg. Mortimer tends to arbitrarily decide what his subjects were like and interpret (or make up, as the Iliad example proves) everything through that lens. Henry V was excessively proud, Mortimer claims, so everything he did was motivated by his pride. For Mortimer, Henry V is has no redeeming qualities - Richard II, he says, at least had culture but Henry V did not. This is patently untrue. Henry had been a patron of the writers John Lydgate and Thomas Hoccleve. True, neither Lydgate or Hoccleve have been served well by literary commentary and criticism over the centuries and have suffered by comparison to Chaucer but there has been a lot of work re-evaluating their work. Henry was also quite interested in books. Mortimer sardonically informs us that Henry had no interest in music but the sound of war drums but, to put it bluntly, he's talking bullshit.

We have clear, documented evidence of Henry's interest in music. He played music himself, the beauty of his chapel's music was publicly remarked upon, he may have been the "Roy Henry" who composed two mass movements (Roy Henry - King Henry - was probably either Henry IV or Henry V) and indeed, musicological opinion favours him. Mortimer does not even mention the Roy Henry songs in his Henry V bio, not even to claim that Henry IV was the composer (as he does in his Henry IV bio).

He spends a long time talking about how Henry V was awful because he had been raised to be king and, when Richard II refused to accept John of Gaunt as his heir, Henry V's ego took a blow that never recovered. There is no evidence for this. None. Zilch. Zero. There is no reason to believe that Henry V was raised to be king from birth and quite a lot to believe otherwise. Richard's reluctance to name an heir throughout his life and reign would be sign enough that Henry V's father and grandfather shouldn't have raised him with that expectation. Mortimer centres this invented version of history and spends exactly 0 words considering the impact of an adolescence spent dealing with his father's usurpation, rebellion, civil conflict and more (Henry was twelve years old when his father returned from exile and, according to Mortimer in his Henry IV bio, endangered Henry V's life)

Mortimer does not even discuss the impact that Henry's near-fatal wound at age 16 and permanent disfigurement could have had on Henry's character beyond listing "facially disfigured" as one of the horrors awaiting Catherine de Valois upon her marriage. Mortimer seems to flirt a few times with calling Henry V a paedophile for pursuing marriage with a "pubescent" Catherine de Valois and apparently considers arranged marriages to be an oddity ("most of his predecessors had married for love – including his father, grandfather (John of Gaunt) and great-grandfather (Edward III)" - I'm not sure you can count Edward III's since his marriage to Philippa of Hainault was ostensibly to provide his mother with an army to depose his father; or Henry IV's to Mary de Bohun since she was 10 years old at the time.). By focusing only on 1415, Mortimer scaremongers about Catherine de Valois's future but doesn't have to deal with her actual evidence of their relationship.

His other complaint about Henry V is that he was a religious bigot and... look, the evidence doesn't really support this, and he has no problem cheering Henry IV on for going on religious crusade to Lithuania to murder some just-converted Christians in the name of Christ. Mortimer decries the burning of heretics in Henry V's reign but says nothing uncomplimentary about Henry IV who introduced and approved the law that let it happen. And yes, burning people alive is extremely awful but if you call Henry V a zealot and bigot for that, you also have to call the man who made it possible a zealot and a bigot. And you certainly can't pearl-clutch about Henry V invoking God's will in relation to his military campaigns in France just after you've told us how going on a crusade made Henry IV into a Great Man of History.

But by far the worst thing is Mortimer's declaration that Henry V was a extreme misogynist with a pathological fear of woman - possibly, he says, as the result of an "unfortunate experience" in his wild, allegedly promiscuous youth. A lot of the support for this theory comes from flimsy evidence or over-interpreted evidence, some just flat-out bizarre: Joan of Navarre didn't reside in Henry V's household (why would she? She was his stepmother, she had her own household, she hadn't even resided within her husband's household). there were women wearing virginal white at the Agincourt pageants (typical for medieval pageants regardless of the occasion or who they were held for). But the evidence Mortimer seems to put the most weight on and is the most outraged by is... Henry V was reportedly celibate between becoming king and his marriage.

So the evidence for this comes from two fairly reliable sources which means it may well be true (though everything else one of the sources says is labelled by Mortimer as disinformation) but it doesn't tell us how Henry saw women. Chastity was an ideal for a medieval king, it made them more like Christ and showed them strong enough to rule over their bodies (and thus capable of ruling over a kingdom). While a sexed-up, fun-seeking king might be more appealing to a modern eye, it absolutely wasn't from a medieval perspective and we should be slow to judge someone on such anachronistic criteria. It may also be that Henry V didn't have sex with women (I specify "with women" because both sources do this; Mortimer does not) because he wasn't sexually attracted to women or experienced little to no sexual attraction or desire (in other words: he may have been what we would today call gay or asexual). There is no proof this was the case but it's the sort of thing that wouldn't necessarily leave proof and if we are speculating of "unfortunate [sexual] experience" as reasoning, then yes, we need to consider the possibility that Henry V may not have felt sexual attraction and desire in the heteronormative sense that Mortimer assumes he does. Of course, Mortimer himself takes a very "no homo" approach to history (he seems to dance close to no-homoing Edward II a few times) and I doubt he knows asexuality exists, but the implications are there and they are not good.

This view of Henry V is also... fairly misogynist as it ultimately claims that not wanting to have sex with women is proof of a moral failing. It reduces women down to objects that men must have sex with to prove they're not misogynist (seriously?!) and presents m/f relations as the most moral choice. In doing so, Mortimer implies that to be gay or asexual is to be misogynist and immoral. I must say, though, if Mortimer wants his opinions on misogyny to be taken seriously, he probably shouldn't refer to women as "females" in the middle of this.

(I don't believe I'm being too harsh here; he has an "essay" on his website in which he rants about how The Favourite is horrible history (...it's a film?) because it erases men from Queen Anne's story (...wow) and makes the audience think of her as a lesbian when she wasn't (I'm not well-read on Queen Anne but I'm pretty sure this isn't as certain as he makes out?) and no one will remember how she was a hard-working stateswoman because they think she was a lesbian (and he thinks these are exclusive categories... why?)

To be fair, he sometimes does good research. His work on the survival theory is impressive until he went off the deep end with it. He has found things that do correct our thinking about Henry IV's life. But he assumes his conclusions and opinions are evidence of the Definitive Proof that only he has access to so you have to take everything he says with as much salt as the Dead Sea contains. You have to check his research. If he told me grass was green, I'd ask for a peer review.

And then you find he has omitted evidence or clearly hasn't read into it or even (seemingly) flat out invented evidence. That he treats his opinions as facts. That his logic is bizarre and instead feeds only his firmly held conviction that he is right and the evidence must fit his foregone conclusions.

He presents himself as an innovative, genius historian coming down from on high to present us with The Definitive Truth and New Genius Ways to look at history, yet rarely seems to understand the truly innovative and thought-provoking work historians are doing. What he presents as innovations generally aren't. Queenship studies and adjacent work on the soft power of noblewomen clearly is a thing that passed him by. He dismissively refers to Joan Fitzalan, Countess of Hereford as an "old, pious widow" regardless of the studies that show the rather extraordinary way she wielded power in both the reigns of Henry IV and Henry V. He remains wedded to the idea that apart from the very few exceptional women like Isabella of France, men make history and it's Bad, Irresponsible History to cast them in minor roles. He is not interested in more literary approaches to history - he accuses Michael Evans of approaching in history in a “dangerous way” to explore the themes and patterns in the narratives of death (his main example is that Evans parallels the red-hot poker deaths of both Edward II and Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester and it’s worthless because Edward II didn’t actually die in 1327. That’s not the point of Evans’s analysis.) Mortimer is uncomfortable with history studied through a gender lens, as evidenced by his review of Christopher Fletcher’s Richard II: Manhood, Youth, and Politics, 1377–99 in which he concludes by bemoaning that Fletcher does not pay nearly enough attention to "full-bearded jousting champion, crusader and father-of-six Henry" IV  (opposed to "the childless, beardless, unmartial, mercurial Richard" who was bearded as Fletcher makes a point of stating) and that gender studies is too esoteric, not interested in taking things at face-value, like Henry IV’s beardy manliness.

Let’s talk about his own innovations. His ingenious centring of Henry IV's perspective? It's the same thing famously bad pop historians like Alison Weir have been doing for years. He writes Great Men of History biographies and then acts like he’s above the whole concept because Henry V has had too many Great Men of History biographies. Mortimer is not the first historian to write a day-by-day chronicle of history (Marilynne K. Roach published her day-by-day chronicle of the Salem Witch Trials in 1997, 12 years before Mortimer's was published, and I wouldn’t be surprised if there were earlier ones) and his approach is flawed as noted above. He has advocated for the mixing of fiction and history but complains that if he wrote a "pseudo-autobiography" he would be criticised for "blurring the distinction between fact and fiction" and yet this is a type of history that should be criticised. It is a dangerous approach to history. We do not want the historians of the future to waste time separating the fictions of current historians from the facts of the past. Is it good history or bad history to admit that we don’t know something is true? Is it good history or bad history to make up things to explain things we don't and can't know?

In addition to that "essay" where he's absolutely foul about W. Mark Ormrod (who was reportedly a kind and generous man), Mortimer spends some time sniping at “historians” in his books:

They're "confused" by conspiracy plots like the Southampton Plot because they don't understand (like he does) that such plots are vague by nature and they "prefer to see neat plans and processes laid out in evidence of a coherent and achievable strategy". They don't talk about literary form, most "do not realise that history has a literary form" (do they? do they really?). They're wedded to long-accepted facts and blinded by great men of history and hero-worshipping (unlike him). Or they're stuck in a "group-think" and cannot recognise the genius of Mortimer's methods or his Definitive Truth.

Yet, for a historian who complains about "group think" and conspiracies against him, he seems to believe that if only historians accepted and copied his methods, they would come to the exact same conclusions as he has and accept his genius.

He positions himself as an outsider and yet he is not. He is a white, cishet man whose work has been published in prestigious publications like The English Historical Review and by respected academic presses, his books have been published by Vintage, a major publisher. He is no more of an outsider than Dan Jones is.

Oh, and in case you think I'm part of the Big 14th Century England Academia Conspiracy against him, I'm not. I'm not a historian by neither training nor  profession. I've never studied history outside of high school but I am interested and well-read enough to respect the discipline.

---

*Joan of Kent vs Blanche of Lancaster; Edmund, Earl of Kent vs Henry of Grosmont, Duke of Lancaster. Ironically, Mortimer makes much of Kent's "treason" in his Edward II and Edward III work since Kent was executed for trying to rescue Edward II at a date after Edward II's official death - i.e. his treason is proof that Mortimer is correct about Edward II's survival.

** it's doubtful Richard would have actually killed the future Henry V but Henry IV would not necessarily know that for certain and more to the point, that's not the version of history that Mortimer presents.

[thewtcho]

Who Is Nicola Peltz? Victoria Beckham’s Daughter-In-Law Wiki Biography Age

Who Is Nicola Peltz? Victoria Beckham’s Daughter-In-Law Wiki Biography Age

Howdy everybody, in at the moment’s article we introduced you all details about Fashionable Actress Nicola Peltz. As you all know Nicola Peltz is among the most buzzing actress of present instances so keep tuned until the top to know all about her. Nicola Pelts is a well-liked model-actor. The favored actress is at the moment 27 years outdated. She has been married to Soccer Legend David Beckham…

[ranjith11]

David Beckham's Life Story: The Premier League's Golden Boy Reveals All!

🥅⚽️ In this captivating video, we delve deep into The Career of David Beckham. Join us on a journey through the life of a football legend who made history on and off the field. From his humble beginnings to his rise as an iconic figure, we uncover the untold stories and secrets that shaped his extraordinary journey. Explore how David Beckham became a symbol of inspiration and dedication, leaving a remarkable impact on the world of football and beyond. Prepare to be inspired by his incredible achievements and the lessons he's left for us all.

[kiggundu]

*{Docu-Movie}* David Beckham: Infamous 2022 1080p Documentary Biography Sports 5.0 /10 IMDb.com Synopsis... A comprehensive look at David Beckham's football career focusing on his England redemption, World Cup dreams, trial by media, and becoming brand Becks; Beckham became the most commercially valuable player in the world playing for multiple teams. 1080p Blu-ray now available (at Kampala, Uganda) https://www.instagram.com/p/CcWNvyhrV94/?igshid=NGJjMDIxMWI=

[9jabam]

David Beckham Net Worth And Biography

David Beckham Net Worth And Biography

The Famous English Soccer Player David Beckham David Beckham is a retired English soccer player who has a net worth of $450 million. That is a combined net worth with his wife, singer/designer Victoria Beckham. In terms of a pure right-winger, David Beckham excelled like no other soccer player. A stylish player both on and off the pitch, Beckham’s crossing ability and free-kicks are still the…

[xthatboylukex-a]

about luke

Name: Luke Smith; Nickname(s) and Aliases: The Archetype, Lukey Boy, David Beckham, Ashley Stafford; Affiliation:

Bannerman Road Gang

Children of Time

Family Smith

Birthday: Celebrated on the anniversary of Secrets of the Stars; Gender: Male; Sexuality: Gay; Nationality: British; Hometown: Ealing, London, United Kingdom; Family: 

Sarah Jane Smith (adoptive mother);

Sky Smith (adoptive sister; via Sarah Jane Smith);

Barbara Smith, née Wilson (adoptive grandmother; via Sarah Jane Smith);

Eddie Smith (adoptive grandfather; via Sarah Jane Smith);

Eye color: Blue; Hair color: Brunet; BIOGRAPHY

To be written...

Wiki page can be found here. PERSONALITY

To be written...

[saintmeghanmarkle]

Tom Bower on fire: Inside the Beckham v Sussex rift by u/MoreVin671

Tom Bower on fire: Inside the Beckham v Sussex rift https://ift.tt/QI61hrm Bower's current biography project is none other than David Beckham. This is a fantastic behind the scenes account of the spectacularly rude and entitled behaviour that led to the Beckhams calling time on the friendship.Did anyone here know that the Beckhams loaned Meghan their Beverly Hills mansion before the wedding? And then found themselves not invited to the evening party? That Harry asked David to fly to Australia for the Invictus games and then refused to see him? It's a must-read.Archive link https://ift.tt/PSCXicQ post link: https://ift.tt/Sjmq79y author: MoreVin671 submitted: August 05, 2023 at 10:50PM via SaintMeghanMarkle on Reddit

[glucophage5mg]

Victoria Beckham Net Worth 2021: Wiki Biography, Married, Family, Measurements, Height, Salary, Relationships

Victoria Beckham Net Worth 2021: Wiki Biography, Married, Family, Measurements, Height, Salary, Relationships

Victoria Beckham net worth is $300 Million Victoria Beckham Wiki Biography Victoria Caroline Adams was born on 17 April 1974, in Harlow, Essex England,  and as Victoria Beckham, or her stage name, Posh Spice, she is known worldwide as a singer, businesswoman, fashion designer and model, as well as the wife of David Beckham, one of the most recognisable sportsmen in the world. As such, Victoria…

[starsandboulevardsroleplay]

Jesper Conley ✖ 26 ✖ Kicker for the Los Angeles Chargers ✖ Sexuality Up To Writer

‣ BIOGRAPHY ↴

After growing up in Mexico as an avid footballer, that’s soccer, Jesper’s biggest dream was to go to America and live the American dream. For him, the dream was to go pro, play against David Beckham, and become a star. As an only child to a greedy politician, Jesper was lucky enough to receive a solid education which meant that when it came time for him to look into universities he wasn’t particularly at a disadvantage despite living in a foreign country that was deemed generally unsafe. Though most people wouldn’t describe him as exceptionally bright or skilled he could certainly be described as driven. Mexico was home, but California was the place he’d always pictured himself.

There were a couple of colleges in Mexico that offered him scholarships, but only one school in America that accepted him. California State took Jesper on, but he had no scholarship and no promise of getting on the team. After his two semesters that led to two failed attempts to get on the team, his roommate who was at the school for football, the American pastime, encouraged him to audition as a kicker. Immediately impressed, he was taken on and became the star of a team that just couldn’t seem to make touchdowns those two years. Luckily, this wasn’t just a means of passing the time. Finding a love for “the other football” and applying his “real football” skills to the sport led to his immediate drafting upon his graduation from Cal State.

Living a new dream and playing in the NFL for the Los Angeles Chargers, Jesper has decided to buy a place in Los Angeles and pay rent to a teammate for their basement during training season. Though the coming season will show whether he is a kicker or not Jesper is already the top fantasy draft choice for his position. His lavish life knows no limits and he has also been labeled as one of the NFL's most desired men. Taking his fame to the next level he models for Under Armor, as well as doing frequent commercials for the NFL and Gatorade. There’s only one place the fame hasn’t gone to his head and that’s when it comes to his relationship with his mother back in Mexico. Knowing that she isn’t safe with his father and also wanting to please her, he joined this social network in hopes of meeting someone because he knows that his mother would want to move over if he was getting serious with someone and he likes the idea of a relationship and moving on to the next chapter of his life.

‣ CONNECTIONS ↴

Cal State connections are HERE

Chargers connections are HERE

‣ DETAILS ↴

FC: Samuel Larsen Ethnicity: Persian, Mexican, Spanish, and Danish Availability: OPEN Negotiable: Yes Gifs: 340 . 175 . 115

main rp . rules . nav . faceclaims . APPLY

[thewtcho]

Who Is Nicola Peltz? Victoria Beckham’s Daughter-In-Law Wiki Biography Age

Who Is Nicola Peltz? Victoria Beckham’s Daughter-In-Law Wiki Biography Age

Hello everyone, in today’s article we brought you all information about Popular Actress Nicola Peltz. As you all know Nicola Peltz is one of the most buzzing actress of current times so stay tuned till the end to know all about her. Nicola Pelts is a popular model-actor. The popular actress is currently 27 years old. She has been married to Soccer Legend David Beckham and Victoria Beckham’s…

[ranjith11]

David Beckham's Life Story: The Premier League's Golden Boy Reveals All!

🥅⚽️ In this captivating video, we delve deep into The Career of David Beckham. Join us on a journey through the life of a football legend who made history on and off the field. From his humble beginnings to his rise as an iconic figure, we uncover the untold stories and secrets that shaped his extraordinary journey. Explore how David Beckham became a symbol of inspiration and dedication, leaving a remarkable impact on the world of football and beyond. Prepare to be inspired by his incredible achievements and the lessons he's left for us all.