I Feel Sorry For Alexandra

[lori]

They did seem to be a couple of "movers." But do they have enough weight to shake? I seriously doubt that.

 

[Dennism]

"Even a Texas winter (hardly ever snow) is harsh for me sometimes. "

The summers are better temperature wise but too dry, right?

 

[lynnredbug]

Originally posted by Dennism@Dec 23rd, 2003 - 3:10 pm
The summers are better temperature wise but too dry, right?

Texas is a big state. Certains parts are dry. We live close to the Gulf (of Mexico) so it's actually humid by a Midwesterner's standard. Comparing to Bangkok, the humidity here is nothing. Neither is the summer heat.

When I ponder a bit more on why Princess Alexandra likes to visit Hong Kong every year, I think she just simply misses Hong Kong. It has nothing to do with being disloyal to Denmark. I left Thailand at 16, half the Princess's age when she left Hong Kong. Although I now call Houston home, there are certain things you can only get at home, e.g. visitting old friends. But that is probably a politically-incorrect thing for a Danish Princess to say. It's a lot easier to just say "I can't get used to the winter here." Anybody can relate to that.

 

[Jasl]

Mary on the other hand has not kept a job for more than a year in her entire 10 year "career." She served stints as an English teacher along with doing some marketing for a real estate agency. She is not accomplished in her life before becoming fred's fiance.

Just a small note about Mary's CV:

I must reiterate that my point was not that she changed jobs - this is obvious, and I have no quarrel with this at all. What I was against was the point that "she is not accomplished in her life" and "she has not kept a job for more than a year". For my part, I believe these comments to be misplaced and harsh. I think if Alex had one of Mary's jobs in her CV (for example, Account Director/Manager with DDB Needham) it would be praised to high heaven. Mary DID change jobs but one can see from her CV and the jobs she had that SHE IS AN ACCOMPLISHED YOUNG WOMAN (she had competitive jobs in competitive firms).

And furthermore, I do believe that she has been in some jobs for more than a year. If we take away the the 3 mths contract at Scotland, the English teacher job in Paris and the MS in Denmark, we are left with 5 jobs only. Furthermore, attacking her teaching job and real estate agency job is uncalled for. Theya re good jobs, and with regards to the teaching job, was unlikely to be undertaken as a start in a new career, but an in-between job. We should also remember that Belle Property is not some small estate agents and she did not sell houses - she was an Accounting Director.

For my part, I would be proud to have Mary's CV.

To focus on Mary's job changes is cool, but to use this as an excuse for not acknowledging her achievements is unjust.

But back to Alex, if the reports that her dad is unwell are true, then I feel for her. It must be hard - Mary lost her mum too so she would know what its like to have a parent ill.

 

[CD.]

What is an Accounting Director? What was she actually doing?

 

[Poppy]

After reading the comments, my personal conclusion is that, I still DON'T like Mary.

 

[CD.]

That's fair enough. IMO,I find her boring. Letizia, whilst I'm not a fan of hers either, at will prove to be an interesting one to watch. I think Mette is lovely as is Maxima. Mathilde is not that interesting either but at least she is the least controversial. Princess Alexandra is one of my favorites.....She a dream doll.

 

[kelly9480]

I agree that Mary is boring. She's in her 30s and never accomplished anything career-wise. There's no personality there. I just dislike her, and I probably always will. There are just some people that you automatically dislike, and can't put why you feel that way into words.

I respect that Letizia had a successful career and had ambitions, and I think it will interesting to see how she adapts.

Mathilde is boring beyond belief; she's well-mannered and poised, but you just don't see any personality there.

Maxima is interesting because she's just so vivacious and lively.

I like Martha Louise more than I like Mette-Marit. I think I like ML's personality, though she does seem to play the Royal-card too often, even though she's said she wants a normal life now.

I think the Countess of Wessex isn't all that interesting. And she's married to the most unpopular of the Queen's kids, so that rubs off on her popularity. She's never going to live down some of the things she's said and done, and the Queen's courtiers have said less-than-kind things about her in the papers (anonymously, of course), which doesn't help her situation.

I respect that Alexandra had an established career, and had goals in her life. And she's made a wonderful transition to royal life.

 

[CD.]

Well said

 

[lori]

Some just don't have flair or personalities no matter the heritage, and so that makes them very boring. Mathilde is one, and I am afraid, Mary is one also. They maybe nice, but nice is usually a description suited for uninteresting people. I do like alex. I think she is inteseting because she is kind of people person. Do you see from many pictures when she is paying attention to people, she leans forward. I deem that humble gesture, closing the gap, opposite of distancing from people, imho.

 

[lori]

O yeah and the real estate agency Mary worked for is a high profile agency that handles multi million dollar sales, not merely some small suburban real estate agency.

Unless you know the inside story, it is hard to judge how they perform in those companes. You could say she worked for big company in important position with important clients. But then you could also say if she did not meet the expectation of say dollar amount, she walked. So, in a big company is not a judge of performance. But in a real world, people do judge tenure since they could not get inside scoop, how long you stay become one of the criteria to an employer. And I must say it is not the only criteria, unfortunately if she did it frequently, it did look bad on a resume.

 

[Jasl]

Originally posted by lori@Dec 28th, 2003 - 6:47 pm

O yeah and the real estate agency Mary worked for is a high profile agency that handles multi million dollar sales, not merely some small suburban real estate agency.

Unless you know the inside story, it is hard to judge how they perform in those companes. You could say she worked for big company in important position with important clients. But then you could also say if she did not meet the expectation of say dollar amount, she walked. So, in a big company is not a judge of performance. But in a real world, people do judge tenure since they could not get inside scoop, how long you stay become one of the criteria to an employer. So jsut as we can say "short people are not good high jumpers", but if a particular short person is a good high jumper and beats many other tall people, then by golly gosh the belief that short people are not good high jumpers is not relevant to that particular short high jumper. In the same way we can continue to say "job hoppers are not attractive to employers". But if employers continue to employ Mary, then that criticism can't apply to her.

Hello... what's this? Are people actually catching on to what they've been doing??

It is said that I don't know "the inside scoop" and perhaps rightly so. But the thing is that unless those who attack Mary also personally know how Mary performed, then they too don't have the inside scoop. If my posts are therefore rejected because I don't know the inside scoop, then people who post negatively also should not do so because they too don't have all the details. See!!! we don't really know anything!!!

But hey! if we are to make assumptions, I think it's easier to say that she did accomplish big things (but again, this is just my opinion). Everyone who has been through or applied for graduate positions in multi-national companies know the processes is horrific. Everyone knows that DDB Neeham/ Young & Rubicam are competitive firms. Yet people feel justified in saying that "Mary is not accomplished?????"...... whatever.

With regards to tenure, does anyone know how long she stayed at those firms?? Isn't the whole problem the fact that we don't know how long she worked for each firm?? I think she was with DDB Needham for some time (because she got 2 certificates whilst she was with them, she finished her graduate rotation and progressed). I think the Scottish/French/MS jobs should also be extracted because these weren't jobs that we can expect her to stick to (backpacker job and "waiting to be engaged" job). But really we don't know. But I think just as you're able to use "tenure" to indicate something "suss", I think the fact that she continued to be employed by competitive firms indicates strongly that she is still highly employable and sought after. I meant his would bring the whole "no-one looks kindly on job-hoppers" criticism down. So we can continue saying it and saying it, but the fact remains that COMPETITIVE FIRMS CONTINUED TO EMPLOY MARY. So just as we can say "short people are not good high jumpers", but if a particular short person is a good high jumper and beats many other tall people, then by golly gosh the belief that short people are not good high jumpers is not relevant to that particular short high jumper. In the same way we can continue to say "job hoppers are not attractive to employers". But if employers continue to employ Mary, then that criticism can't apply to her.

 

[CD.]

Do we know if her positions were permanent or temporary positions? She might not have been able to secure a permanent position and she just did temp work....

 

[Jasl]

Or she might have been permanent for all jobs except the Scottish/teaching/MS jobs. Who knows????? Maybe we should ask her when she comes to Australia

But as people trained in the adversarial systems would know, saying that "she might not have been able to secure a permanent position and she just did temp work" is leading and if it was part of a question in examination in chief, it would be rejected or its weight would be diminished because it's suggesting an answer when there is nothing to suggest that it is indeed so. (sorry, I just didn't think there was a need for it since the question "Do we know if her positions were permanent or temporary positions was already adequate... but that's only my opinion).

 

[Josefine]

for how long did alexandra work at her compony?
and what does her CP look like?

 

[lori]

but the fact remains that COMPETITIVE FIRMS CONTINUED TO EMPLOY MARY.

For how long? that is the question. She quit or they don't use her any more, that is the question. I agree we don't know at all, because no dates were given, why dodge dates, when every cv writer knows dates are important? but the fact remains she hopped around. You want to say she is accomplished, now, that is the question I would raise. Accomplished on what? Worked for big company with good position? OK, let's say she was good entering the big company, then why did she not stay if it was so competitive. If you say, well, there were other reasons, yeah, then, what about the other jobs? If you say, well, there were other reasons we can't forsee. then, that's one too many reasons. I agree she is young, changing jobs are normal, but to say she is accomplished, that is just so "Denish press"ish silly.

 

[CD.]

Jasl, this is not a court of law-its a discussion board on Royalty. Therefore statements can be made that can lead to further analysis. The ..... at the end of my statement is leading on for further discussion with other members as suggested. (Which you responded to accordingly). Points of law ought to be addressed on other forums.

People who work and have a job history themselves, know that employers do look at the length of employ when assessing a candidate for a future position. Someone who has short term tenure would be questioned. To say "COMPETITIVE FIRMS CONTINUED TO EMPLOY MARY" doesn't answer much. If, for instance, Mary highlighted the fact that some of her previous positions were casual/temp jobs then her "job hopping" as some say is explainable and perfectly reasonable in my eyes.(that is why I brought it up.) A temp tries on many jobs until settling down in a position they are satisfied with. But if Mary was employed by these "competitve firms" and only stayed for a short term it would indicate to me, IMHO, that she has difficulties either coping with the work or just not being generally satisfied with the jobs she took on. As an employer, I would qustion this because if I'm employing someone there is usually an agents fee of a few thousand dollars and I would not want to part with my money on someone who is going to stay for a year or less. This is why I lead a discussion questioning what type of employment she had(ie part time etc)

Remember Mary did not provided any dates on her CV which rings bells IMHO. The fact that she had to also display her fathers CV says alot about what she thinks(IMO) of herself and her job history/past. Are there any other C.Princess that officially displayed their parents CV and job history? If I were applying for a position I would not be showing my dad's CV. Simple as that. I don' think anyone else would either.

 

[wymanda]

Who cares what Mary's situation was prior to her engagement!!

The fact of the matter is that Alexandra is the wife of the second son. It is unfortunate that Joachim married first and that his wife has taken on the role properly occupied by the Crown Princess. Now that Frederick is marrying Alexandra should take a step or two back and relinquish the roles that will properly belong to Mary.

 

[CD.]

Actually P. Alexandra has a main role to play whether Mary's there or not. She is the mother of two wonderful children, the Danish people adore her and the reality is her children are in line to the throne, until Mary herself has children with Frederick. If Mary and Fred don't have any children, P. Alex children will be next in line after Frederick. That is why she and her kids are important.

 

[beebee]

Originally posted by wymanda@Dec 30th, 2003 - 7:20 pm
Who cares what Mary's situation was prior to her engagement!!

The fact of the matter is that Alexandra is the wife of the second son. It is unfortunate that Joachim married first and that his wife has taken on the role properly occupied by the Crown Princess. Now that Frederick is marrying Alexandra should take a step or two back and relinquish the roles that will properly belong to Mary.

I completely disagree. It is not "unfortunate" that Joachim married before Frederik. Joachim happened to find the woman he wanted to marry before Frederik did. It is utter nonsense to insinuate that the second-born should remain single until his older brother finds a wife.

Neither is your assessment of Alexandra as usurper to the throne in any way accurate. For the past eight years, she has played her role as princess - her true role, regardless of your sentiments - with the utmost grace and dignity. To the Danes who have come to love her, she is not someone who has ever stolen the roles "that properly belong to Mary," and I'm sure no one expects her to "relinquish" her duties and fade into oblivion at Schackenborg. Denmark has opened its arms to both Mary and Alexandra, and Denmark will surely have room for two very lovely princesses.

 

[Sean.~]

Well said, Beebee.

Sean.~

 

[wymanda]

Originally posted by beebee+Dec 30th, 2003 - 8:04 pm--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (beebee @ Dec 30th, 2003 - 8:04 pm)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-wymanda@Dec 30th, 2003 - 7:20 pm
Who cares what Mary's situation was prior to her engagement!!

The fact of the matter is that Alexandra is the wife of the second son. It is unfortunate that Joachim married first and that his wife has taken on the role properly occupied by the Crown Princess. Now that Frederick is marrying Alexandra should take a step or two back and relinquish the roles that will properly belong to Mary.

I completely disagree. It is not "unfortunate" that Joachim married before Frederik. Joachim happened to find the woman he wanted to marry before Frederik did. It is utter nonsense to insinuate that the second-born should remain single until his older brother finds a wife.

Neither is your assessment of Alexandra as usurper to the throne in any way accurate. For the past eight years, she has played her role as princess - her true role, regardless of your sentiments - with the utmost grace and dignity. To the Danes who have come to love her, she is not someone who has ever stolen the roles "that properly belong to Mary," and I'm sure no one expects her to "relinquish" her duties and fade into oblivion at Schackenborg. Denmark has opened its arms to both Mary and Alexandra, and Denmark will surely have room for two very lovely princesses. [/b][/quote]
In no way did I mean to imply that Prince Joachim should have waited for his brother to find a wife. Circumstances saw him fall in love and marry while his brother was still looking.

Alexandra found herself the only princess of her generation in the family and, as such, second lady in the land. Now that Frederick & Mary are to marry she will automatically fall back one place and some of the duties she has undertaken will fall to Mary as Crown Princess.

The thing I see happening is a Princess Diana scenario where Alexandra can do no wrong and Mary is continually compared to her.

To quote a popular saying here in Australia

Come on Aussie, Come On (Go Mary)

B) :flower:

 

[kelly9480]

Alexandra shouldn't have to step back. Alexandra should continue doing what she has done. If Mary can't live up to that, then that's her problem and her failure. You don't lower the bar because one of them can't handle the expectations. You keep expecting her to rise to the challenge.

Alexandra's roles with her charities should not change. These charities have a history with her, and she has worked for them. She shouldn't relinquish these roles simply because the court can't find something for Mary to do.

 

[CD.]

Personally I think Alexandra has taken to her role like a duck to water. I don't know how Mary will perfom with Charities-I'll take a wait and see approach.


Oh by the way, I'm Australian and because of this it doesn't mean I have to automatically like Mary!

 

[beebee]

Originally posted by wymanda@Dec 30th, 2003 - 9:23 pm
The thing I see happening is a Princess Diana scenario where Alexandra can do no wrong and Mary is continually compared to her.

If that sort of thing does happen to Mary, I agree, it will be quite an unfortunate situation. But outside of this board, I don't actually think that it is the case that people already believe that Mary cannot possibly measure up to the high standards already set by Alexandra. The Danes seem fascinated by the future CP of Denmark, and it is difficult to imagine that they would cease to treat Mary with the respect they have already accorded Alexandra.

I don't have any Go Mary! sentiments just yet. I wish she'd give more interviews and such. I have a hard time imagining what she is really like.

 

[Lady Jean]

I assume that certain charity patronages, etc. have been "saved" (left vacant) for Frederik's future wife. Even before he had a suitable girlfriend, I imagine the court assumed he would marry someday and his wife would carry out public appearances and receive honorary appointments.

I think it will be great for Denmark to now have two shining princesses.

 

[Alexandria]

Interesting, Lady Jean. I hadn't thought about charities being 'saved' for whomever Frederik's future wife would be. But I suppose that is very likely.

And no doubt Mary will seek out patronages of her own, causes that interest her or she is passionate about.

 

[Times2222]

I

Interesting, Lady Jean. I hadn't thought about charities being 'saved' for whomever Frederik's future wife would be. But I suppose that is very likely.

And no doubt Mary will seek out patronages of her own, causes that interest her or she is passionate about.




Reply: I agreee with Lady Alexandria. In addition to the roles "saved" for Frederik's wife (if they do exist), the queen may invite Mary to join some of the charities that she herself patronizes today.

 

[Alexandria]

And might Mary "pick up" charities or patronages that Queen Ingrid represented that have not been filled since her passing or when she cut back her schedule? I think that when Queen Ingrid passed away Queen Margrethe, Princess Alexandra and the rest of the family might've picked up some of charities Queen Ingrid represented and added it to their schedules, but I can't imagine that they would've picked up all of them.

 

[wymanda]

Originally posted by Alexandria@Jan 1st, 2004 - 11:48 am
And might Mary "pick up" charities or patronages that Queen Ingrid represented that have not been filled since her passing or when she cut back her schedule? I think that when Queen Ingrid passed away Queen Margrethe, Princess Alexandra and the rest of the family might've picked up some of charities Queen Ingrid represented and added it to their schedules, but I can't imagine that they would've picked up all of them.

A very good point. I would think that the Queen has a very full schedule and would be only too happy to hand on some of the causes she inherited from her mother to her daughter-in-law.