The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #41  
Old 12-28-2003, 06:47 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 152
Quote:
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.
__________________

__________________
  #42  
Old 12-28-2003, 07:26 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 549
Quote:
Originally posted by lori@Dec 28th, 2003 - 6:47 pm
Quote:
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.
__________________

__________________
  #43  
Old 12-28-2003, 09:04 PM
CD. CD. is offline
Gentry
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 54
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....
__________________
  #44  
Old 12-30-2003, 03:01 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 549
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).
__________________
  #45  
Old 12-30-2003, 03:08 AM
Josefine's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: , Sweden
Posts: 9,168
for how long did alexandra work at her compony?
and what does her CP look like?
  #46  
Old 12-30-2003, 03:37 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 152
Quote:
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.
__________________
  #47  
Old 12-30-2003, 06:52 PM
CD. CD. is offline
Gentry
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 54
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. :P

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.
__________________
  #48  
Old 12-30-2003, 07:20 PM
wymanda's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 1,426
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.
__________________
Everything I write here is my opinion and I mean no offence by it.
  #49  
Old 12-30-2003, 07:36 PM
CD. CD. is offline
Gentry
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 54
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.
__________________
  #50  
Old 12-30-2003, 08:04 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 57
Quote:
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.
__________________
  #51  
Old 12-30-2003, 09:12 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 898
Well said, Beebee.

Sean.~
__________________
  #52  
Old 12-30-2003, 09:23 PM
wymanda's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 1,426
Quote:
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&#39;s situation was prior to her engagement&#33;&#33;

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&#39;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:
__________________
Everything I write here is my opinion and I mean no offence by it.
  #53  
Old 12-30-2003, 10:48 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Houston, United States
Posts: 853
Alexandra shouldn&#39;t have to step back. Alexandra should continue doing what she has done. If Mary can&#39;t live up to that, then that&#39;s her problem and her failure. You don&#39;t lower the bar because one of them can&#39;t handle the expectations. You keep expecting her to rise to the challenge.

Alexandra&#39;s roles with her charities should not change. These charities have a history with her, and she has worked for them. She shouldn&#39;t relinquish these roles simply because the court can&#39;t find something for Mary to do.
__________________
Kelly D
  #54  
Old 12-30-2003, 10:55 PM
CD. CD. is offline
Gentry
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 54
Personally I think Alexandra has taken to her role like a duck to water. I don&#39;t know how Mary will perfom with Charities-I&#39;ll take a wait and see approach.


Oh by the way, I&#39;m Australian and because of this it doesn&#39;t mean I have to automatically like Mary&#33;
__________________
  #55  
Old 12-31-2003, 12:41 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 57
Quote:
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&#39;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&#39;t have any Go Mary&#33; sentiments just yet. I wish she&#39;d give more interviews and such. I have a hard time imagining what she is really like.
__________________
  #56  
Old 12-31-2003, 02:03 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: _, United States
Posts: 467
I assume that certain charity patronages, etc. have been "saved" (left vacant) for Frederik&#39;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.
__________________
  #57  
Old 12-31-2003, 02:11 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: , Canada
Posts: 3,220
Interesting, Lady Jean. I hadn&#39;t thought about charities being &#39;saved&#39; for whomever Frederik&#39;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.
__________________
  #58  
Old 12-31-2003, 07:42 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 86
I [QUOTE]Interesting, Lady Jean. I hadn&#39;t thought about charities being &#39;saved&#39; for whomever Frederik&#39;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&#39;s wife (if they do exist), the queen may invite Mary to join some of the charities that she herself patronizes today.
__________________
  #59  
Old 01-01-2004, 11:48 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: , Canada
Posts: 3,220
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&#39;ve picked up some of charities Queen Ingrid represented and added it to their schedules, but I can&#39;t imagine that they would&#39;ve picked up all of them.
__________________
  #60  
Old 01-01-2004, 06:10 PM
wymanda's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 1,426
Quote:
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&#39;ve picked up some of charities Queen Ingrid represented and added it to their schedules, but I can&#39;t imagine that they would&#39;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.
__________________

__________________
Everything I write here is my opinion and I mean no offence by it.
Closed Thread

Tags
alexandra, alexandra manley, countess alexandra, countess of frederiksborg, princess alexandra


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
How Does Haakon Feel About His Future Role? Josefine Crown Prince Haakon & Crown Princess Mette-Marit and Family 28 04-06-2007 07:22 PM
Sarah Ferguson, Duchess Of York: News and Photos Jacqueline Current Events Archive 170 09-23-2004 03:30 PM




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 fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta cristina infanta elena infanta leonor 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 ottoman pom prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince laurent prince pieter-christiaan princess princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess claire princess eleonore princess elisabeth princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess marie princess mary princess of asturias queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia spain state visit visit wedding william


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

RV & Travel Trailer Communities

Our RV & Travel Trailer sites encompasses virtually all types of Recreational Vehicles, from brand-specific to general RV communities.

» More about our RV 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 2002-2012 Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:51 AM.

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]