Dutch royals edited Wikipedia entry on themselves

[Marengo]

I actually think the family is more angry with the press for portraying Mabel in a certain way than with Mabel herself. Especially the Queen is said to be rather fond of Mabel. The family usually has the attitude of annoyance with the press, usually complaining about the pres being intruisive and all that and making hypes out of nothing.

[Empress]

Well, they're not too far off in that assesment in my eyes. I think that we have way too much information about private lives. Granted, taxes pay for a portion of their lifestyles, but I don't think that gives us the right to poke our noses into every single aspect of their lives.

[lucien]

Originally Posted by Empress

Well, they're not too far off in that assesment in my eyes. I think that we have way too much information about private lives. Granted, taxes pay for a portion of their lifestyles, but I don't think that gives us the right to poke our noses into every single aspect of their lives.

Oh,that tax bit?As was posted last week the annual turnover/spin-off due to our Monarchy is estimated to be between 4 to 5 billion Euro's.
So "that tax bit"is absolutely peanuts.Well,wouldn't you think?

And Mabel.She was portrayed the way we think we can discus,or better "they"/men think they can discuss her,by that obnoxious PI Peter R.de Vries.Seeing the face of that man,not to mention having to listen to that voice!!!!,makes that I don't believe all that much what a alcoholic former crook in Urugay had to say about her and Klaas de Vries.Big deal.But they,whomever they are,made a big deal on it without any proof,at all.
But we've gotten used to that coming from that de Vries person now haven't we.

[Marengo]

Well, the big deal in the end that she and her husband lied to the Prime Minister and to the Queen. The whole affair, television programme and other scandals were just colatoral damage, so to speak. It made her and her husband the jolly jokers of the Dutch public for a while. So even though I am not too fond of Peter R de Vries and his ways he was able to show that Mabel and Friso lied, which was the reason why they didn't ask parlament to approve of the marriage (they would have voted against it for sure).

[sgl]

What happened to Peter de Vries after the scandal broke? Is he a detective? How did he uncover the information? I apologize if this has already been stated, but I couldn't locate it in the thread.

[acdc1]

Originally Posted by sgl

What happened to Peter de Vries after the scandal broke? Is he a detective? How did he uncover the information? I apologize if this has already been stated, but I couldn't locate it in the thread.

Maybe OT, but wasn't Peter de Vries the one who unearthed all the things about Joran van der Sloot, the guy that was with Natalee Holloway the night she disappeared? He had secret cameras and everything. It's a huge deal over here.

I didn't know that he had anything to do with Mabel.

[LadyK]

Yes and no, I believe he got an interview with Joran van der Sloot, but I think they still weren't able to arrest him. But further discussion of this is probably better left to the Member's Corner.

My impression was that Mr. de Vries was an investigative reporter, or something along those lines.

[sgl]

I recently saw that interview with Peter de Vries talking about Joran van der Sloot. I didn't realize that this was the same guy. He seems kind of shady and dangerous. There was something about him that seemed a bit cold and evil. I didn't believe that his intentions were pure when he stated that he wanted Joran to be caught. I'm sure he had the same less than pure intentions when he investigated the Mabel story.

[Marengo]

Well, in the end it isn't the intention that counts, but the result. In the Natalee Holloway case he at least got Joran to speak about the evening. In Mabels case he was able to show that Mabel had lied to the prime minister and to the Queen and hence she and her husband were removed from succession. Mabels image never recovered from the report of Peter R de Vries and the press avalanche afterwards IMO, it probably never will. In the public mind she is a lying over-ambitious woman who shared beds to work her way to the top. It probably isn't a right evaluation of Mabels character but my guess is that that is the image that most Dutchmen have of her.

The show of Peter R de Vries provided some classic quotes and the Chilenian bandit (Charlie da Silva, former bodyguard of Klaas Bruinsma) on a horse, looking into the camera and saying 'Mabel, do you still remember me? I do remember you' is a classic that usually can liven up any birthdayparty. Other quotes like 'she was the woman of the tall one' (the tall one aka the vicar aka Klaas Bruinsa, a Dutch mafioso) and more are still well known too and there was even a song about the boat 'Neeltje Jacoba' where Mabel and Klaas Bruinsma were said to have spend evenings together.

The only way she could ever change this would be some sort of press campaign and a few tears in an interview might help, but that will never happen (thankfully). There is no reason for such a campaign and maybe the couple is even happier in the shadow than they would have been when they had to perform public duties (Friso doesn't seem very socially gifted).

Note that Princess Mabel still denies any romantic or sexual involvement with Klaas Bruinsma, she said she misinformed the Prime Minister and the Queen about how well she knew him (apparently it was more than the 'loose sailing contacts' she said in the beginning). According to her it was all hyped by the press and many lies were told, which is true according to a recently published study on the matter.

About Peter R de Vries: he does research after crimes, but his style can be too sensational as we saw in the recent reports (why was it needed to show a crying Beth Twitty for example). Apart from that I find him arrogant, cold, rude and too full of himself. Still, he has been able to solve some murders and other things in the past, dispite all this.