Crown Prince Frederik and Crown Princess Mary, Current Events 3: Oct. 2004 - May 2005


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
What the hell is Mary wearing ?? Her jacket/top needs to be thrown away and her pants look abit big and her shoes dont match...Has she forgotten how to dress?We all know you can do better than that.
 
Mary and Frederik - The Flora Danica service
transpx.gif
transpx.gif
transpx.gif
The danish peoples wedding-gift 'Folkegaven' for Crown Prince Frederik and Crown Princess Mary was handed over to the Crown Prince couple today: 200 single pieces of the world-famousFlora Danica Service, with their personal monogram, and 250.000 danish kroners (ca. 34.000 Euro) from the sales of a wedding-CD (When you hold me) by danish musician Erann DD. The money will be given to children projects in Greenland.
 

Attachments

  • 2.jpg
    2.jpg
    19 KB · Views: 298
  • 3.jpg
    3.jpg
    20.6 KB · Views: 301
  • 4.jpg
    4.jpg
    17.6 KB · Views: 312
  • 5.jpg
    5.jpg
    21.2 KB · Views: 314
  • 6.jpg
    6.jpg
    25.6 KB · Views: 324
  • 7.jpg
    7.jpg
    21.5 KB · Views: 320
  • 1.jpg
    1.jpg
    18.9 KB · Views: 310
Mary and Frederik receive the Danish Peoples wedding-gift
(from Colourpress.com)
 

Attachments

  • 5.jpg
    5.jpg
    24.2 KB · Views: 409
  • 9.jpg
    9.jpg
    25.5 KB · Views: 323
  • 8.jpg
    8.jpg
    22.7 KB · Views: 334
  • 7.jpg
    7.jpg
    26.9 KB · Views: 338
  • 6.jpg
    6.jpg
    28.6 KB · Views: 348
  • 4.jpg
    4.jpg
    24.9 KB · Views: 430
  • 3.jpg
    3.jpg
    25.5 KB · Views: 347
  • 2.jpg
    2.jpg
    25.3 KB · Views: 337
  • 1.jpg
    1.jpg
    23.9 KB · Views: 374
Thank you for the photos Lyonnaise!

Does Mary's hair look more auburn to anyone else?
 
I like Mary's hair and blouse. I think she should have worn a nice Malene Birger skirt with a nice pair of blue Prada pumps to complete the look. I really like hair layered hair though.
 
more from www.polfoto.dk

Fred is quite cute as he seems very interested in the china!
 

Attachments

  • Danica.jpg
    Danica.jpg
    26.5 KB · Views: 254
  • Danica_2.jpg
    Danica_2.jpg
    19.3 KB · Views: 285
  • Danica_3.jpg
    Danica_3.jpg
    17.7 KB · Views: 212
  • Danica_4.jpg
    Danica_4.jpg
    23.1 KB · Views: 212
  • Danica_5.jpg
    Danica_5.jpg
    21.5 KB · Views: 215
  • Danica_6.jpg
    Danica_6.jpg
    15.8 KB · Views: 245
Thanks for the pictures Julia! Frederik looks like a little boy playing house and enjoying it! :p
 
Lyonnaise said:
Mary and Frederik - The Flora Danica service
transpx.gif
transpx.gif
transpx.gif
The danish peoples wedding-gift 'Folkegaven' for Crown Prince Frederik and Crown Princess Mary was handed over to the Crown Prince couple today: 200 single pieces of the world-famousFlora Danica Service, with their personal monogram, and 250.000 danish kroners (ca. 34.000 Euro) from the sales of a wedding-CD (When you hold me) by danish musician Erann DD. The money will be given to children projects in Greenland.
Must say I really like the wedding china they received from the danish people, with their monogram (which is beautiful)...great gift, better than the pot they received last week.
 
CP Mary's outfit was fine. The only problem is that she wore together for the blouse and pants dark colors. The whole outfit would have been better if she wore a blouse with a lighter shade. Not also something which nearly compliments the pants.
 
November 2. 2004

According to a news report, Denmark's Crown Princess Mary was recently stopped by Danish police for driving at 140 kilometers per hour (about 87 miles per hour) on a highway where the maximum speed limit is 90 kilometers per hour. The article says the princess will not be charged with speeding because, as a member of the royal family, she enjoys immunity. More on this story (in Spanish): La Policía danesa detiene a la Heredera Mary.

LTR members what do you think of the latest report about the princess' driving?

In my own opinion, there is one advantage of being a part of the Royal Family, you would enjoy immunity. But I think sometimes this is abused.

Even though the Royals have a higher place in any country than the ordinary citizens but they should not be exempted from the consequences of not abiding by the laws of the country over various matters. If they are stopped by the police for overspeeding they should then pay any fine if ever that is what is stated in the law. There should be no exemption because even if they are royals, they are all citizens of a certain country and they are expected to abide by the laws. They should even be examples.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
paulette said:
TRF members what do you think of the latest report about the princess' driving?

In my own opinion, there is one advantage of being a part of the Royal Family, you would enjoy immunity. But I think sometimes this is abused.

Even though the Royals have a higher place in any country than the ordinary citizens but they should not be exempted from the consequences of not abiding by the laws of the country over various matters. If they are stopped by the police for overspeeding they should then pay any fine if ever that is what is stated in the law. There should be no exemption because even if they are royals, they are all citizens of a certain country and they are expected to abide by the laws. They should even be examples.
I agree with you. Being royal should not exempt you from abiding to laws.
 
Paulette-you say they should be exempted from some laws, but not all, what laws do you think they should be exempt from? It seems to me that something as minor as speeding (unless it causes an accident or something of the like for others) ticket should be what they are exempted from, and the major laws (murder, purgery, etc.)* should be the ones they are expected to abide by. Otherwise what is the point of diplomatic immunity?

*These are just examples-I'm not actually saying I think any member of the Royal Family would commit any of these offenses!
 
Interesting discussion!

I personally think that as royals are above the fray of so many things (i.e. politics) they shouldn't be above the law, too.

If royals are to be role models for their citizens (and I think most of us would agree that some royals -- no names necessary -- are better role models than others), then what kind of example are they setting if they disregard such "minor" laws as speeding or parking in a no park zone?

From Britters' example (not pointing you out, just using your examples as a starting point!), to say that royals should be held accountable for more "serious" offences such as murder, but not necessarily so for "lesser" offences such as speeding -- where does one draw the line? If you and I would get a $100 fine for speeding then why shouldn't royals, too? Nobody should be above the law, whatever your social status.

And more than anybody, royals should be held accountable for their actions, good or bad.
 
Alexandria-I totally agree with you. My question was basically, where do you draw the line. If you are going to give diplomatic immunity where do the lines lay? I don't think Royals should be above the law, it just doesn't make much sense for people in such postions to be allow to get away with things they are suppose to be representing...however if they are going to be "above" the law, then wouldn't it make more sense for those laws that aren't being enforced to be the minors ones?
 
I have read on another board that in reality the report about Mary's speeding was made by a man who claimed he thought he saw her. That seems to be the basis of this accusation. I have seen nothing more substantial than rumor.
 
I agree in such minor matters as paying a fine they can well afford, royal families shouldn't be above the law, but I don't think that means mary should come under criticism just because by quirk of the state she does have such immunity.
 
As Alexandria noted: this is a very interesting topic!

I agree that royals should be held responsible for all of their actions and should not be considered as being above the law. They should accept responsibility for their actions and pay their dues accordingly.

Am I correct in remembering that when Frederik and Joachim were caught speeding by the police as teenagers that QM II made them apologise on t.v.???
 
Julia said:
Am I correct in remembering that when Frederik and Joachim were caught speeding by the police as teenagers that QM II made them apologise on t.v.???
muhahahaha are you serious? what a cool queen ^__^ that should teach them a lesson hahaha
 
i agree with paulette and alexandria. that's not a good example... also, the fact that mary asked the police not to tell the press about it seems quite hypocritical.
 
Julia said:
As Alexandria noted: this is a very interesting topic!

I agree that royals should be held responsible for all of their actions and should not be considered as being above the law. They should accept responsibility for their actions and pay their dues accordingly.

Am I correct in remembering that when Frederik and Joachim were caught speeding by the police as teenagers that QM II made them apologise on t.v.???
Yes you are correct Julia and i can tell you that it happend in France.
CP Frederik and Prince Joachim was very sorry for the problem thay had made.
 
Umm, it was more than just about speeding... they were involved in an accident (poor Joachim was driving) and I think the thought of losing both her sons scared the bejesus out of QM and I suppose the thought of losing the two closest in line to the throne scared the Danes as well.

But just in regards to the Mary speeding thing, I hope a Dane on this forum can translate the Se og Hor article for us. Because from what I've heard from those who have actually read the Se og Hor article, I don't think anyoen can really confirm that it was Mary driving that car, and that the 140kmh figure was merely someone's guess (pls correct me if this is wrong, but apparently the "source" of this rumour was a guy or woman on a bike who was "there" at the time... this person made a guess as to the person driving the car - apparently Mary - and also made a guess as to how fast the car was going - apparently 140... I mean unless that person is an expert at guessing how fast a car is going, then i don't think its very reliable. But one thing at a time. Remember that the magazine that all the other international magazines are relying on here is Se og Hor... the mag that reported that Mary was going for pregnancy scans.... and then ALL the international magazines/newspapers followed suit! I mean, talk about the blind leading the blind!

So unless you're prepared to believe the source of the "Mary is pregnant" stories, then I wouldn't be too ready to accept this new rumour. Or you may, its up to you. Personally, I don't think Se og Hor is the most reliable of sources (I believe this is also the magazine who's editor had no qualms in printing pics of Frederik peeing into the bushes *rolleyes*).



So if its not too much of a hassle, can someone please translate the article for us?
 
Last edited:
Well, Se og Hør is Se og hør, sometime they get it right other times, not so much...

However the palace spokes person that said that the Royal Family always respects the traffic laws was OBIOUSLY lying. They have been caught speeding several times. So if she was going to tell the truth she should have said thet they follow the speedlimits most of the times, except when they have a plane to catch or....
 
Hmm, I suppose. But I suppose if we are going to be strict about it, then I suppose it would also be correct to say that almost nobody respects the traffic laws. Coz at some point, advertently or inadvertently, we have gone over the speed limit (especially when going down some dratted hill or not realising its school time and that school time speed limits apply), or parked illegally, or did a U turn where we weren't supposed to, or crossed a double line etc.

However when we commit traffic infringements, the whole nation doesn't focus on us and what we've done. Pay the fine, or in some cases, do some community work. But it takes much more than one or two traffic infringement for someone to question our respect for traffic laws, and even more for that "disrespectful" tag to be attached to us permanently. Royals on the other hand can be criticised more easily, and the label in most cases always stays with them.

Perhaps the spokesperson should not have said "always". But personally, I think its quite harsh and unrealistic to equate "always respect" with being perfect on the road at all times (even when its not recorded), especially as I don't think anyone here has always and at all times upheld every single traffic law.

I know this is splitting hairs, but sometimes, I choose to breach traffic laws, not because I have less respect for that traffic law, but because the other competing consideration is much more important at that particular time. Does this make sense?
 
Last edited:
While I agree that mostly everyone who drives has violated traffic laws at least once, whether it be speeding, an illegal U-turn, parking where we shouldn't or whatever, if we are caught for these violations we are held accountable for them and must pay the fine or whatever.

Just because Mary (or other royals) are the focus of public attention doesn't excuse them for making the same violations other normal people do and doesn't excuse them for violating rules. I think this is where Britter's point of "where does one draw the line" comes in. Laws are laws and every citizen of the country should follow them and be held accountable to them. We can't say that it's okay for Mary to speed a little but not okay for Citizen X. If Mary is a citizen of Denmark then she should follow the same laws as every other citizen.

As for having other considerations that are more pressing, so you excuse that speeding -- that's not right. We could all come up with 10 reasons to speed: I'm late for my doctor's appointment, I need to catch my airplane, my mom is waiting for me to pick her up, etc. But if all the other drivers on the road had the same excuses then our roads would be not only chaotic but also very dangerous. Hence traffic laws.

And as stated above, choosing to violate traffic laws is a choice one makes. I chose to speed, you choose to speed, Mary chose to speed. But that doesn't make the choice right, let alone legal.

Nobody is above the law, even royalty. We shouldn't excuse royals for some of the things they do, especially when there are clear cut rules (i.e. laws) determining what they can/can't or should/shouldn't do. We can excuse royals for not wearing an appropriate hat to an event, but certainly not for violating clear cut, defined laws.
 
Last edited:
I agree Alexandria-but now I ask, if we are saying "Every citizen must respect the laws of Denmark-even the Royals" then what is the point in offering Dipolmatic Immunity?
 
Britters said:
I agree Alexandria-but now I ask, if we are saying "Every citizen must respect the laws of Denmark-even the Royals" then what is the point in offering Dipolmatic Immunity?
A good question ...

What kind of diplomatic immunities do royals enjoy? I'm not really sure about this. The same as politicians working or representing their home countries in another country enjoy?

A few years ago I heard a story on a news magazine about a foreign diplomat who was in Washington, D.C. and went out one night, got drunk and proceeded to get into his car and drive drunk. He, sadly, killed a young couple, parents of 2 children. But because he was an amabassador, he enjoyed diplomatic immunity and as such, was not charged with drunk driving or manslaughter as anyone else would've been. He returned to his country (I forget which country it was now) and carried on with his life while two little kids went on with their life with their parents. As the story went on, it was revealed that this ambassador had been caught on several occasions speeding but because of diplomatic immunity on such matters, he was never fined or even received as much as a warning. Ever since this story I've been opposed to, on the whole, diplomatic immunity for anyone, politicians and royals alike.
 
Alexandria said:
A few years ago I heard a story on a news magazine about a foreign diplomat who was in Washington, D.C. and went out one night, got drunk and proceeded to get into his car and drive drunk. He, sadly, killed a young couple, parents of 2 children. But because he was an amabassador, he enjoyed diplomatic immunity and as such, was not charged with drunk driving or manslaughter as anyone else would've been. He returned to his country (I forget which country it was now) and carried on with his life while two little kids went on with their life with their parents. As the story went on, it was revealed that this ambassador had been caught on several occasions speeding but because of diplomatic immunity on such matters, he was never fined or even received as much as a warning. Ever since this story I've been opposed to, on the whole, diplomatic immunity for anyone, politicians and royals alike.
Good point. I agree. I think he was Russian too which might have been one of the reasons for not shaking any feathers. But I think there should be no immunity as well.
 
Alexandria said:
While I agree that mostly everyone who drives has violated traffic laws at least once, whether it be speeding, an illegal U-turn, parking where we shouldn't or whatever, if we are caught for these violations we are held accountable for them and must pay the fine or whatever.

Just because Mary (or other royals) are the focus of public attention doesn't excuse them for making the same violations other normal people do and doesn't excuse them for violating rules. I think this is where Britter's point of "where does one draw the line" comes in. Laws are laws and every citizen of the country should follow them and be held accountable to them. We can't say that it's okay for Mary to speed a little but not okay for Citizen X. If Mary is a citizen of Denmark then she should follow the same laws as every other citizen.

As for having other considerations that are more pressing, so you excuse that speeding -- that's not right. We could all come up with 10 reasons to speed: I'm late for my doctor's appointment, I need to catch my airplane, my mom is waiting for me to pick her up, etc. But if all the other drivers on the road had the same excuses then our roads would be not only chaotic but also very dangerous. Hence traffic laws.

And as stated above, choosing to violate traffic laws is a choice one makes. I chose to speed, you choose to speed, Mary chose to speed. But that doesn't make the choice right, let alone legal.

Nobody is above the law, even royalty. We shouldn't excuse royals for some of the things they do, especially when there are clear cut rules (i.e. laws) determining what they can/can't or should/shouldn't do. We can excuse royals for not wearing an appropriate hat to an event, but certainly not for violating clear cut, defined laws.
I wasn't arguing that royals should retain their immunity. I'm all for royals being held accountable for their actions like the rest of us. All I was trying to point out in my posts were (1) that we can't really know for sure that it was Mary nor can we confirm that she was travelling at 140kmh, and (ii) since I am not perfect on the road, I think its a bit rich for me to criticise another for not being perfect on the road. Hold them accountable for their actions, fine them, whatever, I don't have a problem with that - I'm all for it (so I actually do agree with your point Alexandria, except for the fact that I think you misinterpreted what I'm saying). But I don't think we ought to be too critical because someone's committed a traffic infringement, because we've committed them too.

In regards to other considerations excusing ones speeding, I'm not actually trying to argue this. What I was trying to discuss was the criticism that because you've committed a traffic offence, you don't respect traffic laws all the time. I think one's "respect" for a huge body of law such as the traffic law should be influenced by the totality of one's actions on the road, and that one or two incidences (especially unconfirmed incidences) shouldn't mean that one has to keep qualifying themselves by saying "I don't respect traffic laws all the time because I did this, did that...." I mean, I love my parents, but I don't say "I love my parents, except this one time when I shouted back at them, or when I slammed the door, or smoked when I wasn't supposed to" etc.

I also think we should qualify what we say by saying that no one can confirm that Mary did in fact speed. As stated before, the source is Se og Hor, and Se og Hor based their criticism on what one person thought he saw (might add that this person didn't have a radar or anything so I don't know how a person can say "o, she drove 140)" and have it accepted as truth).

Or is this readiness to accept this story due to the fact that some people just can't wait to criticise the CPss? I remember very well how, when the pregnancy rumous surfaced, some of us wrote that "I won't believe it until we have confirmation from the palace", yet when this rumour surfaces, we have no qualms in accepting this rumour as truth? Its probably just me, but I tend to think that a negative rumour must satisfy a higher treshold before I'll accept it, compared to the lower threshold when it comes to accepting positive rumours (a bit like the different tests for civil and criminal cases.... balance of probabilities and beyond reasonable doubt etc, although I'm not using these tests, but something like it). I mean for example, I'll readily accept the report that Mary helped some old pensioner, but won't readily accept the rumour that Fred has an illegitimate daughter etc.

Again:
1. Source = Se og Hor (recently caused other magazines, both Danish and international, to report that the CPss was pregnant... which we all now know was totally bs);
2. Based on = what one person thought she/he saw;
3. 140 kmh = one person's "guess" as to how fast the driver was going, reached without the help of a radar.
 
Last edited:
Jasl said:
Or is this readiness to accept this story due to the fact that some people just can't wait to criticise the CPss? I remember very well how, when the pregnancy rumous surfaced, some of us wrote that "I won't believe it until we have confirmation from the palace", yet when this rumour surfaces, we have no qualms in accepting this rumour as truth? Its probably just me, but I tend to think that a negative rumour must satisfy a higher treshold before I'll accept it, compared to the lower threshold when it comes to accepting positive rumours (a bit like the different tests for civil and criminal cases.... balance of probabilities and beyond reasonable doubt etc, although I'm not using these tests, but something like it). I mean for example, I'll readily accept the report that Mary helped some old pensioner, but won't readily accept the rumour that Fred has an illegitimate daughter etc.
Jasl, from my end, and it seems from Britters' end (though I cannot speak for her), I think we are taking the discussion beyond this matter being strictly about Mary. As you can see from both of our latest posts we refer to Mary as well as other royals, not strictly Mary. I personally would have this same reaction if we were talking about Frederik or any other royal. The incident with Mary is what started this discussion but is not limted to the actions of Mary.
 
That was my point of view as well, I'm speaking of other Royals when we discuss this now! I would also like to point out we are no longer speaking directly about the speeding ticket (s) but about all actions and laws of a country.

Does anyone know what exactly Diplomatic Immunity incurs? What it means and what it includes? It seems it's rather unclear, and many things migh possibly fall under that catergory!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom