The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > Royal House of Denmark > Current Events Archive

Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #81  
Old 11-03-2004, 08:08 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 549
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?
__________________

__________________
  #82  
Old 11-03-2004, 08:27 AM
Larzen's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 2,819
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....
__________________

__________________
  #83  
Old 11-03-2004, 08:55 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 549
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?
__________________
  #84  
Old 11-03-2004, 11:35 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: , Canada
Posts: 3,220
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.
__________________
  #85  
Old 11-03-2004, 12:23 PM
Britters's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: DC, United States
Posts: 878
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?
__________________
Have you ever wished on a star? It's a magic everyone needs to experience!
  #86  
Old 11-03-2004, 02:02 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: , Canada
Posts: 3,220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Britters
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.
__________________
  #87  
Old 11-03-2004, 03:26 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: East of the sun and west of the moon, United States
Posts: 6,423
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexandria
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.
__________________
  #88  
Old 11-03-2004, 04:26 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexandria
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.
__________________
  #89  
Old 11-03-2004, 05:11 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: , Canada
Posts: 3,220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasl
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.
__________________
  #90  
Old 11-03-2004, 05:16 PM
Britters's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: DC, United States
Posts: 878
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!
__________________
Have you ever wished on a star? It's a magic everyone needs to experience!
  #91  
Old 11-03-2004, 06:17 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: , Canada
Posts: 3,220
Because this thread is about Frederk and Mary (and hence the confusion) and since some of us are discussing this matter as it pertains to all royals and not just Mary, I've recopied some of the messages to this thread, where we can carry on the discussion: http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums...d=1#post139397

See you there!
__________________
  #92  
Old 11-04-2004, 12:25 PM
DKgirls's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 135
Has anyone of you seen some pictures from when Frederik and Mary got the people's gift from the wedding this week??

If not, we can post some :)
__________________
  #93  
Old 11-04-2004, 12:49 PM
Mandy's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: , United States
Posts: 6,927
Quote:
Originally Posted by DKgirls
Has anyone of you seen some pictures from when Frederik and Mary got the people's gift from the wedding this week??

If not, we can post some :)
Thanks for the offer DKgirls. There are some pictures with posts #81 and #84 of this thread, but if you have more pictures, I would love to see them.

Crown Prince Frederik and Crown Princess Mary, Current Events 3: Oct. 2004 - May 2005
  #94  
Old 11-04-2004, 06:31 PM
Mandy's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: , United States
Posts: 6,927
Did anyone post these pictures before?

September 9, 2004. Crown Princess Mary pictured during the inauguration of the Fredensborg-Humleb¾ k municipality's 'Health Week' at the square in Fredensborg. This year the theme of the Health Week is 'Health in time - time for health'. Photo Keld Navntoft/Scanpix
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	FMP-04-11-30140172.jpg
Views:	177
Size:	33.3 KB
ID:	53759   Click image for larger version

Name:	FMP-04-11-30420172.jpg
Views:	103
Size:	28.5 KB
ID:	53760   Click image for larger version

Name:	FMP-04-11-30470172.jpg
Views:	251
Size:	37.7 KB
ID:	53761   Click image for larger version

Name:	FMP-04-11-30510172.jpg
Views:	235
Size:	33.5 KB
ID:	53762  

  #95  
Old 11-04-2004, 07:14 PM
Britters's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: DC, United States
Posts: 878
I hadn't seen those pictures before. I think this is one of my favorite Mary outfits though. I like the bright colors in the jacket. I very much like the hat! Mary looks fabulous in these pictures!

I only wish we could see her shoes for the event, I'm sure they are gorgeous!
__________________
Have you ever wished on a star? It's a magic everyone needs to experience!
  #96  
Old 11-04-2004, 07:21 PM
Alisa's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: , United States
Posts: 1,843
Britters, she wore these shoes at the event. I really like them...


__________________
  #97  
Old 11-04-2004, 09:48 PM
Ennyllorac's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: , United States
Posts: 1,974
SHe has great shoes!!!!
__________________
  #98  
Old 11-05-2004, 12:07 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 549
Spunky, but you can't wear those shoes in the wet! (sorry, its raining here in Sydney, and I'm looking sceptically at those shoes thinking "I can't wear those!") hehe...
__________________
  #99  
Old 11-05-2004, 04:54 AM
MarieLouise's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 117
We also have a rather wet climat here in Denmark, but I suppose Mary has so many shoes, that she doesn't have to worry about the fact that half of them aren't at all suitable for rain - Lucky girl....

Anyway I also really like that outfit, I think it's one of her more formal outfits that doesn't make her look too dowdy (dowdy - is that the right word?).
__________________
Dronning, dronning kom nu frem! Ellers går vi aldrig hjem!!!
  #100  
Old 11-05-2004, 10:05 AM
Britters's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: DC, United States
Posts: 878
I absolutetly love those shoes...and now I must find out who designed them and find a pair of my own! I'm rather jealous of Mary's shoe collection, she has a rather large one or the most gorgeous and interesting shoes! And lucky enough for me, the climate is fairly temperate in both NYC and Denver that I could get away with wearing shoes such as those.
__________________

__________________
Have you ever wished on a star? It's a magic everyone needs to experience!
Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Crown Prince Frederik, Crown Princess Mary and the Save the Children Fund pdas1201 Crown Prince Frederik and Crown Princess Mary and Family 63 08-24-2012 06:18 AM
Crown Prince Frederik and Crown Princess Mary, Current Events 2: May - October 2004 USCtrojan Current Events Archive 468 10-11-2004 07:43 PM
Crown Prince Frederik and Mary Donaldson, Current Events 1: September 2002 - May 2004 Lorraine Current Events Archive 506 05-07-2004 12:03 AM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events diana dutch royal history engagement fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri habsburg hohenzollern infanta sofia jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg olympics ottoman pom pregnancy prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince felix prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary princess of asturias queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit wedding william



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:18 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]