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
 
  #361  
Old 02-25-2007, 09:15 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Frankfurt, Germany
Posts: 159
Definitely Alexandra is not a lazy woman.
She once mentioned in an interview that she loves fast-paced lifestyle.
That suits quite well to her background: Hong Kong is a fast-paced city.
It´s also reasonable to assume that Alexandra has been more or less influenced by the Asian culture since she grew up in Hong Kong.
Many Asians are really diligent and hard-working people.
It doesn´t surprise me at all that Alexandra wants to be more involved in some of her partonages instead of being simply a "royal head" of those organizations. She seems to be such kind of person.

I don´t understand why some people on this forum are so sticked to the amount of money Alexandra receives from the Danish government.

I have a feeling that some people would only be satisfied if Alexandra receives nothing from the state since she is divorced.

This is really an interesting psychology.
Ok. She´s divorced. She´s no longer a member of the royal family. She will be no longer a princess.

So what? She is always the mother of two princes. And the two princes live with her!

I wrote in one of my previous posts that many divorced women receive money from their ex-husbands for doing nothing. Alexandra also has right to receive money from Joachim for doing nothing. If Joachim can´t afford it, someone else should try to pay, and in this case it seems to be the Danish government. I believe that even if Alexandra gives up all her partonages she will still receive some allowance. (Will it be a good story for people to know, Aha, the DRF doesn´t pay a cent to their ex-daughter-in-law although she raises two offsprings/the 4th and 5th to the throne for the royal family?) If Danes aren´t happy with that, they should cancel the monarchy system. Then their government doesn´t have to pay for any royals or ex-royals anymore.

I personally don´t think Alexandra would care about those allowance from the government so much. Otherwise she wouldn´t give up her tax-free status if she is a person who cares about money very much. Many Danes live together lifelong but just don´t get married.

Alexandra has the ability to earn money on her own. (And I am sure she is moving on this way.) But this is not an argument that she shouldn´t receive any allowance from the government. As mentioned, she always remains the mother of the 4th and 5th to the throne, and the two live with her! Either the DRF or the government should pay. It´s quite impossible, at least before Nikolai and Felix grow up, that Alexandra receives no allowance.
__________________

  #362  
Old 02-25-2007, 10:04 AM
Henri M.'s Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Eindhoven / Maastricht, Netherlands
Posts: 1,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heike
I don´t understand why some people on this forum are so sticked to the amount of money Alexandra receives from the Danish government.
With the knowledge that in my country Princess Margriet or Prince Constantijn (members of the Royal House, and in the line of succession) have never ever received one single eurocent from the State, then it is amazing that the Danish taxpayers are willing to fund the former, soon to be remarried, spouse of the second son of the Queen, who is no longer a member of the Royal House or has ever been in the line of succession.

It is very generous towards the future mrs. Jorgensen. Imagine that in your country the state would pay an annual allowance to a divorced spouse of the second son of the Bundespräsident. It is really exceptional.
__________________

  #363  
Old 02-25-2007, 10:17 AM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,387
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heike
Alexandra also has right to receive money from Joachim for doing nothing. If Joachim can´t afford it, someone else should try to pay, and in this case it seems to be the Danish government.
That's not how it generally works for other women who get divorced or even other princesses. The divorced wife usually gets what the ex-husband can afford to pay and that's it. She doesn't usually have recourse to expect help from other sources. Princess Diana received a divorce settlement from Prince Charles - not an allowance from the State when she got divorced and she also was raising two young sons.

I hardly think Joachim is so destitute he cannot contribute financially to his children's upbringing. Then again if Alexandra is doing work for the government then it is good and proper for her to receive an allowance.
__________________
"One thing we can do is make the choice to view the world in a healthy way. We can choose to see the world as safe with only moments of danger rather than seeing the world as dangerous with only moments of safety."
-- Deepak Chopra
  #364  
Old 02-25-2007, 10:21 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Frankfurt, Germany
Posts: 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henri M.
With the knowledge that in my country Princess Margriet or Prince Constantijn (members of the Royal House, and in the line of succession) have never ever received one single eurocent from the State, then it is amazing that the Danish taxpayers are willing to fund the former, soon to be remarried, spouse of the second son of the Queen, who is no longer a member of the Royal House or has ever been in the line of succession.

It is very generous towards the future mrs. Jorgensen. Imagine that in your country the state would pay an annual allowance to a divorced spouse of the second son of the Bundespräsident. It is really exceptional.
Would you please explain more precisely about the family tree of the Dutch Royal Family? I don´t know how close Princess Margret and Prince Constantijn are to the current Queen.

You can´t compare a country with monarchy and a country without.
I also said that if Danes aren´t happy with that, they can just cancel the monarchy. Then the government could save a lot of money.
I also believe that if Alexandra continues to receive allowance after she remarries, it would be because of Nikolai and Felix (no matter what the reason is they give publicly).
  #365  
Old 02-25-2007, 10:33 AM
Henri M.'s Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Eindhoven / Maastricht, Netherlands
Posts: 1,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heike
Would you please explain more precisely about the family tree of the Dutch Royal Family? I don´t know how close Princess Margret and Prince Constantijn are to the current Queen.
Princess Margriet is the only sister of Queen Beatrix who is still a member of the Royal House and in the line of succession.
Prince Constantijn is the only brother to the future King Willem IV Alexander who is still a member of the Royal House and in the line of succession.

None of them has ever received a single eurocent from the State. Also no housing from the state or whatever. The attendance of Prince Friso, Princess Mabel, Prince Constantijn and Princess Laurentien in Oslo is on their own expenses (which will most likely be covered by maman but then we are talking about the Queen's money).

Seen in this light, the Danish State has been very generous towards Alexandra indeed, who is no born royal, is no member of the Royal House and is not in line of succession. That is no criticism. It is just an objective and verifable fact.
  #366  
Old 02-25-2007, 10:36 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Frankfurt, Germany
Posts: 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by ysbel
That's not how it generally works for other women who get divorced or even other princesses. The divorced wife usually gets what the ex-husband can afford to pay and that's it.

I hardly think Joachim is so destitute he cannot contribute financially to his children's upbringing. Then again if Alexandra is doing work for the government then it is good and proper for her to receive an allowance.
Not necessarily.
Many divorces cost the ex-husbands so much, more than they can afford. So they go bankrupt or they committ suicide. But it´s true that these husbands don´t have other resources and the ex-wives will finally only get what their ex-husbands can afford.
However, Denmark has a monarchy system. Alexandra´s ex-husband was a prince. That makes difference.

I heard that the house Alexandra and her boys currently live in has cost a lot of money. So far the DRF refuses to tell who paid for that house. It is said that because of that expensive house, (and the DRF is actually not as wealthy as their european collegues...) the DRF decided to renew the prenuptional agreement with CP Mary. It is said that in the new agreement, Frederik won´t have to buy her a house if Mary divorced him.
  #367  
Old 02-25-2007, 10:44 AM
Henri M.'s Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Eindhoven / Maastricht, Netherlands
Posts: 1,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heike
However, Denmark has a monarchy system. Alexandra´s ex-husband was a prince. That makes difference.
Heu... not exactly.
Alexandra Manley was not married with the State of Denmark.
She was married to Joachim Glücksburg and has got two children with him. But not Joachim Glücksburg but the taxpayers will pay for her alimentation.

Where is the logic in that?

But okay, apparently Danmark is a rich country not nagging about one eurocent less or more.
  #368  
Old 02-25-2007, 11:02 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Frankfurt, Germany
Posts: 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henri M.
Heu... not exactly.
Alexandra Manley was not married with the State of Denmark.
She was married to Joachim Glücksburg and has got two children with him. But not Joachim Glücksburg but the taxpayers will pay for her alimentation.

Where is the logic in that?

But okay, apparently Danmark is a rich country not nagging about one eurocent less or more.
The taxpayers pay for their monarchy because the monarchy represents their country. Joachim is a member of the monarchy and Alexandra was also a member of the monarchy. This is my logic.
It´s true that she´s divorced. But her sons are still members of the monarchy.
I can´t imagine if one day Mary divorced from Frederik (hopefully this won´t happen...), the Danish government refuses to grant her any allowance and tells her that Frederik should pay for everything.
I think it´s not against the law to do so, but it´s just weird for me to treat a former representative of your country like that.
  #369  
Old 02-25-2007, 11:09 AM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,387
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heike
However, Denmark has a monarchy system. Alexandra´s ex-husband was a prince. That makes difference.
Is there another case of a royal spouse getting divorced, losing their royal status and also still receiving an allowance from the state without doing anything?

As I mentioned with the example of Princess Diana, I can't think of another case of a royal divorcee getting money from the state in a case like this. I agree with you that Alexandra may be receiving the allowance because her children are underage and the allowance can give her more than she would get from a settlement from Joachim.

But I think in the absence of being royal she will have to keep up her charity appearances in order to receive the allowance. Even born royals get some criticism when they don't do enough royal work to support their allowances. For a non-royal who has moved on with a new husband to continue getting an allowance from the government and not her husband, I think she'll have to show she's worth it or this practice may set an unwelcome precedent the next time a princess who is not so popular gets a divorce from a Danish prince and an allowance from the Danish government.
__________________
"One thing we can do is make the choice to view the world in a healthy way. We can choose to see the world as safe with only moments of danger rather than seeing the world as dangerous with only moments of safety."
-- Deepak Chopra
  #370  
Old 02-25-2007, 11:14 AM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 11,331
Perhaps the term "allowance" is really just another word for child support. If that is the case...then the boys who are members of the Royal Family and Royal House are certainly entitled to be taken care of by the state. And yes, while it is the norm for the parent (in this case Joachim) to pay it perhaps he doesnt' have the means to do so.

I guess I am just a little confused on what is the main issue. Yes, Alexandra and Joachim divorced. As a wife and mother, according to any country, she would be entitled to child support and alimony (I assume that this is the case in Denmark as well). in the States, if the wife has not "worked" for a certain period of time, the exhusband if he had the means to do so would provide her with a home and certain amount of money so that their children would not experience a difference in life. Now, its not always fair and equitable to all parties at hand but that's how it is. In this case, it appears that the state purchased a house for Alex and her children (and now new husband). Did everyone expect her to get a regular 9 to 5 gig?

And Ysbel, I think the Alexandra and Diana situations are relatively new for royal households. In the past, you had the odd divorce or so, but people just stayed miserable and married to each other, leading separate lives. That and the media/and the world were vastly difference...it was most likely impolite to report/discuss such things. I mean there have been royal divorces in the past (Margaret and the Earl of Snowdon, Victoria Melita, etc.) but no one ever talked about such things.
  #371  
Old 02-25-2007, 11:39 AM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,387
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zonk
Perhaps the term "allowance" is really just another word for child support.
.
If so, I think that's a pretty dangerous route for the DRF to go down. An allowance is usually granted to royals from the state because the state finds the monarchy to be beneficial enough to subsidize. It goes to the heart of what being royal means vs. what being a non-royal means and what justifies an allowance from the state.

If Joachim cannot finance his children's upbringing out of his own allowance then that is a bigger problem than Alexandra's status. If the government doesn't trust Joachim enough to grant him an allowance large enough to take care of his children then it makes more sense to grant the allowance directly to the children and have Alex and Joachim jointly administer it.

I'm not at all sure that this allowance is just for child support but if it is, I think its a badly packaged and badly arranged solution to the problem. Its all a matter of who is responsible to Alexandra. If she has started a new life away from the monarchy and Joachim had the children with her, he has the responsibility to Alexandra while the children are underage, the government should not have that responsibility. And I don't think the royal families should start a precedent where the government steps in to take responsibility for financing the results of broken marriages that their members can't hold together.
__________________
"One thing we can do is make the choice to view the world in a healthy way. We can choose to see the world as safe with only moments of danger rather than seeing the world as dangerous with only moments of safety."
-- Deepak Chopra
  #372  
Old 02-25-2007, 01:37 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Holme, Århus, Denmark
Posts: 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by norwegianne
Dansk Blindeforbund (Danish Association for the Blind) and Unicef are two of the patronages she'll keep, according to Billedbladet.
Yes, and according to this online article from Billed-Bladet, Her Majesty The Queen played a part in the process of deciding which patronages Her Highness Princess Alexandra ought to keep and which she ought to leave.

Mr. Jens Bromann, President of The Danish Association for the Blind says: "I know that Her Majesty has accepted that Princess Alexandra will be able to continue as patron for The Danish Association of the Blind. But I also know that The Princess will not keep all her patronages. So, we are happy that she will stay with us!"
  #373  
Old 02-25-2007, 01:42 PM
norwegianne's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Rogaland, Norway
Posts: 5,993
Quote:
Originally Posted by ysbel
If so, I think that's a pretty dangerous route for the DRF to go down. An allowance is usually granted to royals from the state because the state finds the monarchy to be beneficial enough to subsidize. It goes to the heart of what being royal means vs. what being a non-royal means and what justifies an allowance from the state.

If Joachim cannot finance his children's upbringing out of his own allowance then that is a bigger problem than Alexandra's status. If the government doesn't trust Joachim enough to grant him an allowance large enough to take care of his children then it makes more sense to grant the allowance directly to the children and have Alex and Joachim jointly administer it.

I'm not at all sure that this allowance is just for child support but if it is, I think its a badly packaged and badly arranged solution to the problem. Its all a matter of who is responsible to Alexandra. If she has started a new life away from the monarchy and Joachim had the children with her, he has the responsibility to Alexandra while the children are underage, the government should not have that responsibility. And I don't think the royal families should start a precedent where the government steps in to take responsibility for financing the results of broken marriages that their members can't hold together.
The allowance is for Alexandra's work.

Allowance for the children is paid by Joachim - without any interference from the state.

Of course, now that she remarries, she will also gain allowance from the state for the children, as other, regular Danes do.
__________________
  #374  
Old 02-25-2007, 01:46 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: San Francisco, United States
Posts: 2,383
Perhaps we can assume Q Margrethe and the representatives for the government knew what they were doing when negotiating Alexandra's financial arrangements. Alexandra is young, beautiful and educated - the issue of her re-marrying must have been discussed as well. It would be presumtious to think outsiders have a better idea of how it should have been handled.
  #375  
Old 02-25-2007, 01:48 PM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,387
Quote:
Originally Posted by norwegianne
The allowance is for Alexandra's work.

Allowance for the children is paid by Joachim - without any interference from the state.

Of course, now that she remarries, she will also gain allowance from the state for the children, as other, regular Danes do.
That makes a lot more sense, norwegianne. Thanks for clarifying.
__________________
"One thing we can do is make the choice to view the world in a healthy way. We can choose to see the world as safe with only moments of danger rather than seeing the world as dangerous with only moments of safety."
-- Deepak Chopra
  #376  
Old 02-25-2007, 01:50 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: newyork, United States
Posts: 479
Is there a difference between her being royal and carrying out duties such as patronages and her being remarried and taking care of her patronages.
  #377  
Old 02-25-2007, 01:57 PM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,387
Quote:
Originally Posted by seto
Is there a difference between her being royal and carrying out duties such as patronages and her being remarried and taking care of her patronages.
Generally non-royals who sponsor charities don't get paid a salary by the government.

The only example I can think of is Audrey Hepburn who did the wonderful charity work for UNICEF and who was the first to highlight the plight of children in Africa. I don't even think she got a salary from UNICEF but I think they paid her expenses.

But then again Audrey Hepburn wasn't doing the UNICEF work for the money. She had had a very successful career as a Holywood actress and she was semi-retired by that point.
__________________
"One thing we can do is make the choice to view the world in a healthy way. We can choose to see the world as safe with only moments of danger rather than seeing the world as dangerous with only moments of safety."
-- Deepak Chopra
  #378  
Old 02-25-2007, 02:04 PM
Henri M.'s Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Eindhoven / Maastricht, Netherlands
Posts: 1,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zonk
...then the boys who are members of the Royal Family and Royal House are certainly entitled to be taken care of by the state.
Why are they entitled to take care of by the State?

They play no any role in the State whatsoever.
They are not the head of state or the future head of state and most likely they will never ever come in that position.



The Danish taxpayers are very generous that they will remain paying for 40 years or more for mrs Jorgensen.
  #379  
Old 02-25-2007, 02:28 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: newyork, United States
Posts: 479
Quote:
Originally Posted by ysbel
Generally non-royals who sponsor charities don't get paid a salary by the government.

The only example I can think of is Audrey Hepburn who did the wonderful charity work for UNICEF and who was the first to highlight the plight of children in Africa. I don't even think she got a salary from UNICEF but I think they paid her expenses.

But then again Audrey Hepburn wasn't doing the UNICEF work for the money. She had had a very successful career as a Holywood actress and she was semi-retired by that point.
Thanks I understand now.
  #380  
Old 02-25-2007, 07:24 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: santa clara, United States
Posts: 8
Smile I like your comment

Very nicely written. Everything you wrote makes sense
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heike
I don´t understand why some people on this forum are so sticked to the amount of money Alexandra receives from the Danish government.

I have a feeling that some people would only be satisfied if Alexandra receives nothing from the state since she is divorced.

This is really an interesting psychology.
Ok. She´s divorced. She´s no longer a member of the royal family. She will be no longer a princess.

So what? She is always the mother of two princes. And the two princes live with her!

I wrote in one of my previous posts that many divorced women receive money from their ex-husbands for doing nothing. Alexandra also has right to receive money from Joachim for doing nothing. If Joachim can´t afford it, someone else should try to pay, and in this case it seems to be the Danish government. I believe that even if Alexandra gives up all her partonages she will still receive some allowance. (Will it be a good story for people to know, Aha, the DRF doesn´t pay a cent to their ex-daughter-in-law although she raises two offsprings/the 4th and 5th to the throne for the royal family?) If Danes aren´t happy with that, they should cancel the monarchy system. Then their government doesn´t have to pay for any royals or ex-royals anymore.

I personally don´t think Alexandra would care about those allowance from the government so much. Otherwise she wouldn´t give up her tax-free status if she is a person who cares about money very much. Many Danes live together lifelong but just don´t get married.

Alexandra has the ability to earn money on her own. (And I am sure she is moving on this way.) But this is not an argument that she shouldn´t receive any allowance from the government. As mentioned, she always remains the mother of the 4th and 5th to the throne, and the two live with her! Either the DRF or the government should pay. It´s quite impossible, at least before Nikolai and Felix grow up, that Alexandra receives no allowance.
__________________

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
Princess Alexandra Current Events Part 6 Mandy Princess Caroline and Family 502 10-03-2016 09:08 AM
Crown Princess Mary, Current Events 7: November 2006 - March 2007 Lasse Pedersen Current Events Archive 397 03-20-2007 04:19 AM
Crown Prince Frederik and Crown Princess Mary, Current Events 5: May - December 2006 Mandy Current Events Archive 433 12-19-2006 02:23 PM
Crown Princess Mary, Current Events 3: November 2004 - May 2005 Mandy Current Events Archive 513 05-26-2005 06:24 PM
Princess Alexandra, Current Events 1: November 2002 - May 2005 kelly9480 Current Events Archive 559 05-18-2005 12:03 AM




Popular Tags
ascot 2016 best gown best gown september 2016 best hat best outfit catherine middleton style coup d'etat crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion crown princess mette-marit current events duchess of cambridge dutch state visit e-mail fashion poll grand duke jean greece kate middleton king abdullah ii king carl gustaf and queen silvia king felipe king felipe vi king willem-alexander member introduction monarchy new zealand nobel gala norway november 2016 october 2016 opening of parliament picture of the week prince bernhard prince charles princess marie princess mary princess mary daytime fashion princess mary fashion princess mary hats princess stephanie queen elizabeth 90 birthday queen elizabeth ii queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen letizia style queen mathilde queen mathildes outfits queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania royal fashion satan september 2016 sheikh hamdan bin mohammed state visit state visit to denmark succession sweden the duchess of cambridge the duchess of cambridge casual wear the duchess of cambridge daytime fashion the duchess of cambridge fashion the duchess of cambridge hats


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:33 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2016
Jelsoft Enterprises