The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #21  
Old 07-28-2008, 06:57 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: San Francisco, United States
Posts: 2,041
Quote:
Originally Posted by Villemann View Post
I see your point about money being paid to the other parent, BUT in this case the only justification for handing over the taxpayers money is Nikolai and Felix. Lets just remember that Alexandras money is not child support. It is called a "special allowance." She keeps it till she dies and she can go and live abroad and still get her cheque from the Danes every month. Why didn't someone install some checks and balances before they decided to give Alexandra a free financial ride for the rest of her life? Why didn't someone make sure that there is some kind of fiscal supervision so that the money goes to the sons and not to Alexandra herself. No one knows how much money the Danish Royal Family family has, so no one can say for sure whether or not they would be able to pay for Alexandras upkeep themselves. A source told me that Queen Ingrid left about 100 million Danish kroner, so they must have some money!
Q Margerethe is a very astute and smart woman. I am sure she made sure Alexandra received what she was entitled to - and no more. There are perhaps lots we don't know about the divorce and reasons behind it that would justify the award. Alexandra is set for life - just like any person (man or woman) marrying into money.
It is the royal house that should take any criticism for the way the money comes to Alexandra - it would seem the royal family could have included it in their allowances and passed it on to her. Q Margerethe had her reasons - she is way too smart to just let something happen.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 07-29-2008, 02:48 AM
Viv's Avatar
Viv Viv is offline
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Funen, Denmark
Posts: 739
Quote:
Originally Posted by Villemann View Post
Since the Danish public is denied any insight into the royal finances, we really do not know how rich or poor our royal family is.
Villemann, with all due respect: this has become an obsession of yours!
What makes you think that we have the right to insight into anyones
private financial affairs? I mean, would you like to tell us what your
proceeds are from the sale of "1015-K"? Or would you like to inform
us about your savings and whether you have invested in bonds and
shares, and how much? No?

So what exactly justifies your claim to insight? Is it the very fact
that the RF is living off civil list money? Do you suspect that part
of the apanage is being spent inappropriately on shares in
A.P. Møller? Do you think that the RF have fortunes stashed
away somewhere? I see that you mention Queen
Ingrid and her estate in a later post. 100 mill. kroner! You have
got to be kidding! If my memory serves me right: this amount
was speculated upon by Ekstra-Bladet shortly after her death,
which is why I refuse to take it seriously !

I've read somewhere that "on advice, Queen Ingrid invested her
Swedish inheritance wisely", and there's good reason to believe
that she amassed a comfortable fortune in the lower two digit
end of the scale of million kroners. But whatever she left had
to be divived by at least three beneficiaries (her daughters).

(She would probably have forked out one way or the other, had she
lived to see the divorce!)

Back to the divorce settlement and the alimony: I would like to
believe that the legal/constitutional/financial experts of the
royal court were queueing up to inform HM and Prince Joachim
that they should try keeping the tax payer out of it if they
possibly could. These experts must have been able to foresee
the ramifications of getting Alexandra on the civil list! That's
what I would like to believe, but of course I could be delusional!

On the other hand, one could argue that just as the upkeep of
the Joachims was (partly) a public project, the alimony is (partly)
a public project.

Whatever: stop comparisons with the British RF. The
Prince of Wales is living off the income of the vast Duchy
of Cornwall estate. He isn't even on the civil list; it's a
completely different kettle of fish!

Viv
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 07-29-2008, 04:32 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Villemann View Post
Since the Danish public is denied any insight into the royal finances, we really do not know how rich or poor our royal family is. However, I am certain that the palace courtiers could have come up with something (perhaps even a job?) had it been necessary to "reimburse" Alexandra. It was not necessary because in Denmark the royal house gets what the royal house wants. The "deal" with Alexandra is opposed by a majority of Danes in all the polls, I have seen (please don't ask me to find them, but I have them somewhere because I have done some research into this)
I understand that you are opposed to that payment from public accounts. But in a democracy it works like that: the people vote for their parliament which is the basis of the government. Thus the government represents the people and if the government decides that an ex-wife should have that money, then it's what happens.

I find that okay. It's journalists and authors {edited personal comment - Empress}who make it impossible for somebody who once belonged to a Royal family to start again as a "normal" business woman. What kind of job opportunities does she have? How could she work when she is under constant "public" scrutiny? It's not like Mabel who never was a "real" princess in the Netherlands but lived and worked abroad since her wedding. On the other hand it obviously is not seen as appropriate for Alexandra to work more for charities as she is an ex-member of the RF. What is Alexandra to do? She can't go abroad because of her sons, she can't work and all because of the "public" position she once had. Seems just for me that she should be supported by the public because of that.
__________________
'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 07-29-2008, 05:38 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vienna, Austria
Posts: 958
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine View Post
On the other hand it obviously is not seen as appropriate for Alexandra to work more for charities as she is an ex-member of the RF.
Why is it "obviously not seen as appropriate" to work more for charities and who says so?
After all Alexandra kept more than half of her former 23 patronages - among them UNICEF -, and moreover, working for charities is not a "royal" thing only. A lot of celebrities do it and Alexandra is still very popular in DK and somewhere between royal and celeb.

It's quite clear to me why she had to stop representing the country and I agree that the whole situation is not easy for her.
But IIRC the money from the state was granted to her back in 2004 not for raising her children but because it was said that she would continue her work with her patronages.
IMHO Alexandra hasn't done enough for the money she gets since 2006 (long before she got married again and had to pay taxes and long before Marie appeared on the scene). 20-40 events per year? And no trips for UNICEF anymore?

That's my point of critic. If she really had continued her work with her patronages I would have thought it's ok she gets money from the state because she really doesn't have that many other possibilities. But I don't see a lot of commitment here (after all those years where we were told how much Alexandra cares about her patronages).

This is just my impression of course, could be totally wrong.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 07-29-2008, 05:44 AM
Nobility
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: ~, Singapore
Posts: 476
I think that, although she isn't doing as much work as she used to with those patronages, she is doing more than we see - for example, none of us ever posted about the distribution of annual economic means, of her work with the research into sudden infant death, or the reception at the British Chamber of Commerce, to name a few. Also, she does have a job, although I believe it's not a 9-5, Mon-Fri job (http://www.ferring.com/en/aboutus/people/board/) - I doubt that she could conceviably get one of those, as her last job was obviously before being a Princess (her last job was as a Deputy Chief Executive at GT Management, form 1993-95).
__________________
Don't forget to visit the TRF Blog!

"Not everyone who chased the zebra caught it, but he who caught it, chased it" - South African proverb
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 07-29-2008, 05:48 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vienna, Austria
Posts: 958
She gets extra paid for that "job".
I am talking about the money from the state.
And I am watching Alexandra's own calendar.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 07-29-2008, 05:53 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Athens, Greece
Posts: 267
I will not be taken advantage of

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine View Post
I understand that you are opposed to that payment from public accounts. But in a democracy it works like that: the people vote for their parliament which is the basis of the government. Thus the government represents the people and if the government decides that an ex-wife should have that money, then it's what happens.

I find that okay. It's journalists and authors like you who make it impossible for somebody who once belonged to a Royal family to start again as a "normal" business woman. What kind of job opportunities does she have? How could she work when she is under constant "public" scrutiny? It's not like Mabel who never was a "real" princess in the Netherlands but lived and worked abroad since her wedding. On the other hand it obviously is not seen as appropriate for Alexandra to work more for charities as she is an ex-member of the RF. What is Alexandra to do? She can't go abroad because of her sons, she can't work and all because of the "public" position she once had. Seems just for me that she should be supported by the public because of that.
{Edited personal comment - Empress} Where does it say in the Danish Constitution - or anywhere else for that matter? - that a former or ideed a current member of the Danish Royal Family can not have a job? Up until a few years ago, Crown Princes Frederik actually held a position at the military academy in Copenhagen(albeit only for a short period of time.) We have several minor members of the Danish Royal Family who work for a living. I can not see, why Alexandra, talented and skilled as she is, can not get a job. And I certainly find it very hard to justify that the Danish taxpayer has been left with the burden of supporting Alexandra. I am a roylist and I am prepared to pay for my monarchy, but I am not prepared to be taken advantage of!
__________________
My book on the Danish Royal Family
www.1015copenhagenk.com
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 07-29-2008, 06:01 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: somewhere, Netherlands
Posts: 378
Who is taking advantage of you?? My god, it's not like she is getting millions isn't she?? What is 400.000 euro's a year divided over 5.5 million Danish people, it's really peanuts. And she even pays back at least a third of it in the form of taxes.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 07-29-2008, 06:42 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Athens, Greece
Posts: 267
Like I have stated several times, it is not the money. The sum is insignificant. It is the principle, but also the precedence we might be creating. A monarchy so removed from it's people that it simply "bestowes" the financial responsebility for Alexandra on us, is arrogant and out of tune with the times. It is taking advantage of my goddwill and my rspect for the institution to leave the bill with me and my fellow taxpayers. Also, what happens if there is another royal divorce? Will the Dansih taxpayer have to pay for all future ex-royals, not that we have accepted to pay for Alexandra?
__________________
My book on the Danish Royal Family
www.1015copenhagenk.com
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 07-29-2008, 07:26 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Villemann View Post
I will sidestep your personal attack on me and deal with the issue. Where does it say in the Danish Constitution - or anywhere else for that matter? - that a former or ideed a current member of the Danish Royal Family can not have a job?
Where does that say that indeed... what an idea! That's not what constitutions are about. They are about how the power (including the power to spend the taxpayer's money) is managed in a state. In Denmark, obviously it is the government who has the power and the government probably is being voted for by the strongest parties in the parliament - parties who get their legislative power from their people via votes. So the government is (via the step of parliament) the representative of the will of the majority of people. And if the government decides that Alexandra needs to be supported, then it is legally okay.

About her working: as I said, she faces a lot of difficulties, normal people don't have because of the media interest in her. These media outlets (books, papers etc.) earn money on reporting about her and make it difficult for her to earn money herself. So IMHO it is not right for somebody who is part of the Royality reporting media, who earns money from sniffing around Alexandra's private life, to tell Alexandra to get a job in order to save money for the taxpayers. Yes, you can take this personally if you want to. There are so many ways to earn money as a journalist and author without prying into other people's privacy, so the people who write about this topic and doing "research" on asking other people about their target's secrets don't need to do that but do it because they obviously want to. Which is something I personally don't like.
__________________
'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 07-29-2008, 07:46 AM
auntie's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Middlesex, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,502
Quote:
Originally Posted by Villemann View Post
Like I have stated several times, it is not the money. The sum is insignificant. It is the principle, but also the precedence we might be creating. A monarchy so removed from it's people that it simply "bestowes" the financial responsebility for Alexandra on us, is arrogant and out of tune with the times. It is taking advantage of my goddwill and my rspect for the institution to leave the bill with me and my fellow taxpayers. Also, what happens if there is another royal divorce? Will the Dansih taxpayer have to pay for all future ex-royals, not that we have accepted to pay for Alexandra?
I quite agree with Trinnie over here, when reading these posts regarding the financial settlement I got De ja Vu, feeling, it reminded me a book I read about all mistresses of Kings, how they were bestowed favours, (annuities) for their life even if they were out of favour
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 07-29-2008, 08:52 AM
Viv's Avatar
Viv Viv is offline
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Funen, Denmark
Posts: 739
Quote:
Originally Posted by ricarda View Post
Why is it "obviously not seen as appropriate"
to work more for charities and who says so?.... and moreover,
working for charities is not a "royal" thing only. A lot of celebrities
do it and Alexandra is still very popular in DK and somewhere between royal and celeb.
No one says so, to the best of my knowledge! It's just that in
Denmark the patronages of charities are normally a royal prerogative!

Quote:
Originally Posted by ricarda View Post
IIRC the money from the state was granted to her back in 2004 not for raising her children but because it was said that she would continue her work with her patronages.
Er..not quite! The cost of the upkeep of the children formed a
substantial part of her allowance; about one third IIRC - and the
allowance of Prince Joachim was reduced accordingly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ricarda View Post
IMHO Alexandra hasn't done enough for the money she gets since 2006 (long before she got married again and had to pay taxes and long before Marie appeared on the scene). 20-40 events per year? And no trips for UNICEF anymore?
Alexandra is still a patron of Unicef, more trips may be coming up!
That aside, I for one wonder whether she is expected to phase out
her patronages in due course, now that her successor is in place!

Viv
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 07-29-2008, 09:10 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: somewhere, Netherlands
Posts: 378
Well, she can keep them for a while I think, her successor still has to learn proper Danish as far as I know. And honestly, Marie is a sweet girl, but I really have problems with her being patron of something or another, God knows what she might say to the press!!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 07-29-2008, 10:09 AM
kimebear's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Albany, United States
Posts: 1,382
Alexandra really is between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, attempting to keep up charity patronages to be seen as earning her annual payment. Then, on the other hand, having to keep low enough on the radar as to not overshadow her royal replacement who, by all accounts, she is at least civil with. I had been under the impression that Alexandra was a popular and very hard working princess. Does nearly a decade of dedicated service to Denmark not earn her a decent "retirement" fund, especially if it will be used in some part to raise 2 of the Queen's 4 grandchildren?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 07-29-2008, 12:02 PM
qui mal y pense's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: spring valley, United States
Posts: 259
You forget that there was apparently a loophole somewhere that allowed Alexandra to get what she got. Wasn't there a big flap about a year ago when they made Mary sign an agreement about what she would be entitled to in case of Divorce?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 07-29-2008, 01:57 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Frankfurt, Germany
Posts: 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by grevinnan View Post
Q Margerethe is a very astute and smart woman. I am sure she made sure Alexandra received what she was entitled to - and no more. There are perhaps lots we don't know about the divorce and reasons behind it that would justify the award. Alexandra is set for life - just like any person (man or woman) marrying into money.
It is the royal house that should take any criticism for the way the money comes to Alexandra - it would seem the royal family could have included it in their allowances and passed it on to her. Q Margerethe had her reasons - she is way too smart to just let something happen.
Agree. Queen Margerethe is a very smart woman. We dont know what happened under the table and nobody knows the real reason why Alex and Joachim divorced. However, I think Queen knows.
Also agree that we shouldnt blame Alexandra for receiving money from the taxpayers. She alone couldnt decide if she is allowed to receive money or not. It was a decision of the government and the Queen.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 07-29-2008, 03:05 PM
Al_bina's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: City, Kazakhstan
Posts: 5,654
Smile Well... we are not veering of the topic too much as there is a special thread ....

I am in full agreement with views expressed by Jo of Palatine (see posts #104, 111) and by grevinnan (see post #102). Prince Joachim and his first wife divorced in a civil way, but have already moved on with their lives. The main point is that neither Prince Joachim nor then Princess Alexandra “invited” mass media into this painful deeply private procedure. Thus, it is impossible for us to discuss the secret clauses of the divorce agreement. I also agree that the mother-in-law has approved and given an appropriate allowance to the ex daughter-in-law by taking into consideration her “performance” as a member of the Danish Royal family. Furthermore, I dare to presume that Countess Alexandra did not seek an excessive amount as she was highly unlikely to have an access to and spend unlimited sums of money on everything and anything she chose when she was Prince Joachim’s wife.
One of the many challenges that makes divorce so complicated is that even while Countess Alexandra dealing with all the crud of the divorce process itself, she had to think about how she would get on with a new life for herself. As a former member of the Danish Royal family, it would be impossible for her to return back to the business world and effectively perform without leaving the country because of very close scrutiny by various mass media outlets.
__________________
"I never did mind about the little things" Amanda, "Point of No Return"
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 07-29-2008, 03:38 PM
Empress's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 3,123
Well, she has managed to return to the business world at least somewhat as she is on the board of a large pharmaceutical company, and I assume that she receives some compensation for this as well.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 07-29-2008, 04:19 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Athens, Greece
Posts: 267
Let me just put a few things straigth, if I may: The children's upkeep was NOT mentioned in the bill that was passed in the Danish parliament. In the remarks to parliament before the bill was introduced, it merely stated that the annuity was "in order for Princess Alexandra to maintan a lifestyle suitable for a member of the royal family." Secondly, Alexandra could not have turned down her civil list annuity, because she very much needed the money. She has no funds of her own and her family can not help out, because they are not wealthy either!
Naturally, the Queen was informed of all of this and it was with her permission the palace went ahead with the request to parliament for at annuity to Alexandra. In my personal opinion, Queen Margrethe scored an own goal here. She is , as someone said, a smart woman, but the decision to burden the Danish people with Joachim's alimony will come back to haunt the royals!
__________________
My book on the Danish Royal Family
www.1015copenhagenk.com
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 07-29-2008, 04:24 PM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Villemann View Post
the decision to burden the Danish people with Joachim's alimony will come back to haunt the royals!
Come on - I bet a lot of people are quite happy that this money benefits a lady they like rather than a politician they don't like. It's not as if she received half of the houseld of the State!
__________________

__________________
'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.
Reply With Quote
Reply


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
Alexandra, Countess of Frederiksborg's Charities and Patronages norwegianne Royal House of Denmark 198 09-08-2014 08:43 PM
Countess Stéphanie's Wedding Dresses (Civil and Church) Princess Robijn Wedding of Hereditary Grand Duke Guillaume & Countess Stéphanie de Lannoy: 20 October 2012 185 08-10-2013 07:25 PM
The Earl and Countess of Wessex to Visit Bulgaria: March 2013 Artemisia The Earl and Countess of Wessex and Family 32 06-25-2013 10:27 AM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
birth charlene crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit current events duchess of cambridge dutch royal history engagement fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta sofia jewellery jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg nobility olympic games ottoman picture of the month poland pom president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary princess of asturias queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden visit wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:29 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]