The Danish Monarchy: Is it worth it? Nationalism or a National Waste?


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I have always had the impression that the Danish royals are rather popular with the Danes. I think it's easy to pick out things that the Danes don't do well or to criticize their work schedule. I suppose that is easy no matter what the monarchy. But the fact remains that only Denmark needs to be happy with the Queen and her descendents.

Personally, if I'm being completely honest when I venture into the Danish threads it's most likely to see what they are wearing. They really don't interest me beyond their clothes/style. And I certainly don't even need an endless amount of pictures just a few is enough for me! I don't know why but I have a hard time connecting with them. I would prefer to see them doing some different types of things(I prefer to be vague so as not to offend anyone). But they are Denmark's monarchy and if Denmark tolerates them that hey who am I to say anything. After all, I'm an American, my opinion means squat to the Danes.

Bottomline, we all connect with different royals on different levels. They don't seem to do things and be involved with things that really capture my attention so I tend to keep some distance. That and the fact that I find the Danish threads hard to communicate in.

However, I'm thinking that the Danes are one of the more solid monarchy's out there. I really would not think of them as a national waste. I'm actually surprised by some of the things said in this thread.
 
Last edited:
Frederik does not want to be King. He has never wanted to be the Crown Prince ( at least not the part that means he'll take over after mom). He has never made any secret of how he feels about his role. Unfortunately, the danish royal family does not have a back-up plan in case the firstborn son does not like his destiny. The Danes will some day have to decide if they want a King that does want the job and is also ill prepared for it. Frederik has a very large responsibility on his shoulders - either grow up, get prepared and accept fate or possibly be the final straw that ends monarchy in Denmark.
 
Please back up your opinions with links to reliable published reports or your post will be deleted. Thanks! :flowers:

Mandy
Danish Forum Moderators
 
Its also been said for many years that Queen Elizabeth would have rather lived the country life of a county Duchess, but the fact remains that that wasn't meant to be and she is Queen. You can only face the task before you when your time beckons.

Frederik has a very large responsibility on his shoulders

And there would bo no one who knows this better than Frederik.

either grow up, get prepared and accept fate or possibly be the final straw that ends monarchy in Denmark.

I do have a chuckle when I see statements like this because how any of us can even imagine the responsibility or burden of hereditary monarchy, and further give instruction as to how someone should feel about their succession, and how they should deal with it, is incredibly...well, pompous.

How can we say he hasn't accepted his fate? We can't. How can we say he isn't preparing? We can't. And how does one prepare for one's parent to die?

I'd have thought his focuss should be on his current position, and not that of his mothers, as some would here propose. You cross that bridge when you come to it.

Denmark is no better or worse off, than any other constitutional monarchy. They all face various accusations and are from time to time, seen as pointless.

"Frederik can't talk properly and likes boating", "Charles is an eccentric gentleman who enjoys building villages and buying rare sheep, "Felipe is as interesting as a cardboard box" and "Philippe is politically outspoken and arrogant".

Goes on and on...
 
Last edited:
Mary's beauty contest

Actually, you'd be surprised how many. She herself, according to Patrick Jephson's book and other sources, was upset when she was trying to publicise landmine issues and the media only wanted to talk about her latest boyfriend. It was sort of ironic, given how she'd previously used her high media profile to wear a spectacular dress to some event or other and thereby ensure that a major speech of Charles's about an important social issue was comprehensively ignored by the media.

Given the choice of highlighting some worthy cause or fanning the flames of a real or manufactured scandal, it seems that significant elements of the press will do the latter in a heartbeat. Which is probably why Mary's charity activities get less column inches than her designer frocks or Fred's sailing. And if she stopped wearing designer frocks, no doubt those same elements of the media would be far more interested in that than in the causes she was championing.

But Diana persisted! Today, when you mention landmines, AIDS care, leprocosy, Diana's name springs up immediately. She made a difference. CP Mary is trying to do the same - using the exact same words "Making a difference! in a speech recently - but the spotlight is still on Frederik's intimate chat with a young woman the other night, Mary's clothes style during the recent trip to Miami etc. etc. It is not all the medias fault. If the royals gave us - I include myself here, because I am a journalist albeit not working for a publication - something worthwhile, something out-of-the-box, something surprising, unexpected, whatever, maybe we would pay a bit more attention to their causes instead of always focusing on their looks and private lives. But why do we a write about Mary's hair style? Because people want to read about it! There is nothing wrong in that, but is that all there is to the Danish monarchy these days. Has it become a beauty contest? :flowers:
 
So, it's all about giving the media some extraordinary stories?
worthwhile = out-of-the-box = surprising = unexpected?

Please Mary play the same media game Diana played! Give the journalists some secret informations! Produce as many scandals as you can! And then, please let yourself be killed in a car-crash, so the media can start idolizing you! Please, please, please, please, please....Apparently that's the only way you can make the Danish monarchy worth it. :D

(Seriously: I didn't dislike Diana, in fact I was completely uninterested in her and only took notice when she died, but the first 2 things that come to my mind when I hear her name is scandal and self-promotion. I think she seriously damaged the monarchy and would have damaged it even more if she hadn't died. Besides, I find the media disgustingly hypocritical when it comes to Diana.)
 
Last edited:
So, it's all about giving the media some extraordinary stories?
worthwhile = out-of-the-box = surprising = unexpected?

It would appear so. Seems some wish to turn the institution into a celebrity circus. How shameful.
 
Last edited:
Well I think nowadays living monarchy only exists because it is a very good way to divulge a Contry life and to captivate more people to visit and to live in that place! Only because of this. Royal family is kind of celebrity and is treated like so, they don't have legal power they don't rule a country, they are just nice and beautiful figures who help a country to become more known. They need to give the media some beautiful pictures because that is what people like and that helps to divulge a country.
 
But Diana persisted!
And she failed, when she died the press cared more about where she was going with her boyfriend than what she had being trying to do with landmines. The attention that she was trying to bring to landmines was being totally overshadowed by her personal life.
Today, when you mention landmines, AIDS care, leprocosy, Diana's name springs up immediately. She made a difference
No she didn't. She made peple feal like soemone cared at the time but there is no after effect felt today to the work Diana did when she was alive in the general public. Sure those who she worked with probably have fond memories of it, but the same could be said for those who work with Mary. And as for her name springing up immediately, hardly and when it does usually it is as a result of those who have an agenda - it is used against Camilla, it is used against Charles, it is used to prop up her sons when they make stupid mistakes, it is used when a prince somewhere marries, when another princess carries out charity work but very rarely is her name used as a standalone tribute to charity work she carried out when alive.
It is not all the medias fault.
Of course it is all the medias fault, you write the articles - it is your choice what you put in them. People want to read about Mary's hairstyle, then write about it but it doesn't have to be the main focus of the article. Write about the cause too, about what the point of the visit, the people they meet. Find a balance between the two.
 
Well I think nowadays living monarchy only exists because it is a very good way to divulge a Contry life and to captivate more people to visit and to live in that place! Only because of this. Royal family is kind of celebrity and is treated like so, they don't have legal power they don't rule a country, they are just nice and beautiful figures who help a country to become more known. They need to give the media some beautiful pictures because that is what people like and that helps to divulge a country.

I believe the interest a royal family generates, is reflective of the fact they are a link between the past and the present. The foremost symbol of a Kingdom or Grand Duchy which remains, the essence of that nation's societal hierarchy and the embodiment of political grandeur. The inherent representatives of an institution which is unmatched by any other.

Their stateliness, an aphrodisiac for the ever inquisitive and captivated public. It is pathetic, however, that it is all too often written about like it were a 'tinsel town' amusement.
 
Last edited:
I think it is almoust a beauty contest yes!!! Just scroll down the Royal house of fashion and read it!! But if it wasn't like that people wouldn't care for the Royal family at all and would't speak about it!
 
Has it become a beauty contest?

It largely becomes what the media makes it, regrettably. Media is the sensationalist perpetrator.
 
Well, like it or not, the media is the tool with which the royal house communicates with its subjects. Without the media, today's royals would be nothing. The palace uses the media just as much as the media uses the palace!
I disagree completely in regard to the impact Diana had. She DID make a difference. Her legacy is not just about the car crash and the dodgy lover. She was - and still is - a princess, who mattered to people.
 
Yes, but she didn't matter to people because of the causes she espoused - Princess Anne has a far longer record of charitable activities and so does Prince Charles - she mattered to people because of the emotional connection and the image. The causes were much farther down the list, and as Amelia said, the media weren't wildly interested in them except to (a) upstage Prince Charles and (b) lend some weight to Diana's image.

These days when people talk about AIDS, Diana is hardly ever mentioned. Yes, she's still identified with landmines, but again at the time she was trying to publicise the landmine problem, the people around her were saying how frustrating it was that the accompanying media folk only wanted to talk about her relationship with Dodi.
 
Well, like it or not, the media is the tool with which the royal house communicates with its subjects.

Tool? You got that right...:D

And whilst I acknowledge the above, it's undisputably clear that the difference between the two are the intentions within this "relationship". The Palace requires the use of media in the interests of national broadcast. The media uses the palace in an attempt to infiltrate the establishment and indeed the private lives of the royal family. Again, the sensationalist perpetrators at their best, or rather, at their worst!
 
Last edited:
maybe it takes a journalist....

Tool? You got that right...:D

And whilst I acknowledge the above, it's undisputably clear that the difference between the two are the intentions within this "relationship". The Palace requires the use of media in the interests of national broadcast. The media uses the palace in an attempt to infiltrate the establishment and indeed the private lives of the royal family. Again, the sensationalist perpetrators at their best, or rather, at their worst!

I can't see how the intentions differ that much. The palace spins - the media is trying to see through that spin! It works the same way in politics, finances, world affairs, whatever - but maybe it takes a journalist to actually know how these things work. I was a royal reporter for some years. I know exactly how the palace spins.:flowers:
 
I think there are very few people left who don't know how these things work. Of course the Palace spins, they are in public life, PR is the name of the game. As for the media as some righteous body trying to fight through the rosy-coloured Palace version - come on, they are far to busy putting their own spin on things. You have the Palace's version, you have the media's version and somewhere in between you have the truth.
 
Tool? You got that right...:D

And whilst I acknowledge the above, it's undisputably clear that the difference between the two are the intentions within this "relationship". The Palace requires the use of media in the interests of national broadcast. The media uses the palace in an attempt to infiltrate the establishment and indeed the private lives of the royal family. Again, the sensationalist perpetrators at their best, or rather, at their worst!


We too are the media, by posting on this board, and perpetuating the ongoing saga! The media is not confined to the physical broadsheet, mags etc, - the main source for information in this day and age is right here on the web, the source of most of the fodder for the contents written on message boards, where it is dissected, and analysed, we too, are a part of that 'relationship'! A good thing too, without it there would be precious little floating around, and they would feed us cake!
I don't think I understand what you mean by 'The Palace requires the use of media in the interests of national broadcast' ?
 
I think there are very few people left who don't know how these things work. Of course the Palace spins, they are in public life, PR is the name of the game. As for the media as some righteous body trying to fight through the rosy-coloured Palace version - come on, they are far to busy putting their own spin on things. You have the Palace's version, you have the media's version and somewhere in between you have the truth.

Exactly!

And the journalists trying to fight through the rosy coloured Palace version is definitely nearly never the tabloid version of journalist. This is at least the sad reality I've learned in my lifespan.
 
Last edited:
...[snipped]

Overall I see all monarchies in danger and I doubt many of them will survive the next 100 or 200 years. It's not a danish problem. For me royals will lose their purpose because the new generation has already turned into commoners who don't stand out from the public any longer. Fred preferres to sail, Charles - I don't have to mention, WA, Felipe & Haakon chosing wives with a questionable past / family history etc. Some countries might survive longer because of a strong history (Britain) or because they are cool about their royals (Dutch and maybe the Danes) but all others, sooner or later they will be gone. Many heirs or spouses simply don't bring along the needed attitude to guide a monarchy into the future and how could they? Many of the heirs have been brought up as normal as possible themselves, got married to commoners. Change of generations and society will be so brute that there won't be a future for monarchies any longer, that's at least my prediciton.
I fully agree with your views. I for one think that people are threatened by changes of the state system already in place. Thus, it is more comfortable to put up with an outdated nonsensical form of the supreme government than bear the thought of a change to an elected Head of State that may be followed by inevitable bitter repercussions. The current royal houses do lose their mystic by showing too much of human side ...
 
Last edited:
I can't see how the intentions differ that much. The palace spins - the media is trying to see through that spin! It works the same way in politics, finances, world affairs, whatever - but maybe it takes a journalist to actually know how these things work. I was a royal reporter for some years. I know exactly how the palace spins.


The media is trying to see through the spin? Nonsense. The media tries to break down the barrier piece by piece. The monarchy provides what is necessary and appropriate for circulation. The media then continues to abuse that and will, with minimal constraint, attempt to take what it likes when it's not handed over willingly.

'The Palace requires the use of media in the interests of national broadcast'

Requires the use of media for the benefit of national interest. Weddings, christenings, special occasions, legitimate news, the Queen's Christmas message etc.

For the respective royal events, charitable causes and traditions people enjoy seeing and experiencing. In other words, the cultural intrigues of the institution.
 
Last edited:
It is my sincerest hope and wish that the danish monarchy continues. I believe that Denmark is best represented by a monarch. But of course, times can always change and what is deemed best at the current time may not be so 50 years from now. But if the monarchy has survived and functioned for over 1000 years, I feel that in can continue to do so 1000 years more.

But that's the optimist in me:flowers:
 
The media is trying to see through the spin? Nonsense. The media tries to break down the barrier piece by piece. The monarchy provides what is necessary and appropriate for circulation. The media then continues to abuse that and will, with minimal constraint, attempt to take what it likes when it's not handed over willingly.



Requires the use of media for the benefit of national interest. Weddings, christenings, special occasions, legitimate news, the Queen's Christmas message etc.

For the respective royal events, charitable causes and traditions people enjoy seeing and experiencing. In other words, the cultural intrigues of the institution.


Quite agree, quite a few people follow royal events, and the media is a good launch pad for promoting this interest, on an entertainment level, but not on a national importance level, that might be stretching the point!
 
Quite agree, quite a few people follow royal events, and the media is a good launch pad for promoting this interest, on an entertainment level, but not on a national importance level, that might be stretching the point!

And on a National Importance level!!
 
Quite agree, quite a few people follow royal events, and the media is a good launch pad for promoting this interest, on an entertainment level, but not on a national importance level, that might be stretching the point!

Though to suggest it isn't, would be a paradox of sorts. These people, this institution, is of national importance. They aren't who they are for anyone's amusement and nor are the royal events which are televised.

The Queen doesn't make her New Years braodcast for entertainment value, she does it because as Queen, she has a scoial and governing obligation to do so.

The royal family are not entertainers, they are the royal family. The foremost example of national identity.


(Correction: The Queen makes a New Years Broadcast, not a Christmas one)
 
Last edited:
We want a monarchy of substance

Though to suggest it isn't, would be a paradox of sorts. These people, this institution, is of national importance. They aren't who they are for anyone's amusement and nor are the royal events which are televised.

The Queen doesn't make her New Years braodcast for entertainment value, she does it because as Queen, she has a scoial and governing obligation to do so.

The royal family are not entertainers, they are the royal family. The foremost example of national identity.

The Queen of Denmark does not have a "governing obligation" to make her New Years broadcast. No where in the Danish constitution does it say, that the Queen has to do her broadcast. It is a tradition started by Margrethe's grandfather Christian X.
Well, if the royals are not entertainers, maybe they should stop behaving like they are? What the Danish monarchy lacks at the moment, is substance. It's all style and no content - in my humble opinion!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Perhaps the media should stop portraying them as entertainers/celebrities. Once upon a time royal families were treated with a bit more respect by the mass media. Who is responsible for the shift in journalistic practices? Certainly not the royals!

Cat
 
Well, that argument goes round in circles, doesn't it? The media should stop portraying them as entertainment, but then the media says that they are providing a demand, so the public should actually stop buying these magazines. And in the end royals do 'use' the entertainment factor to enhance their position. I mean for example, why would you actually show your wedding on television? IMO because the entertainment value will strenghten the monarchy.
Though the media does play a role indeed, in the end it is the public that makes the difference. It is the public who decide that they prefer to read small glammy articles on royals instead of more in-depth articles about cause X of princess Y by buying (or not buying) a certain newspaper each morning.
 
I agree,a bit.
On showing the weddings on tv?It is not entertainment,it is the future Monarch getting married,
an occasion of National importance,not some kid on the block.
There is a difference,a huge difference.

On the initial text,whomever concocted it,Is it worth it?Nationalism or National waste?Wrong headline.Very wrong.
 
We want a monarchy of substance

There is no 'we', in 'I'!

The Queen of Denmark does not have a "governing obligation" to make her New Years broadcast. No where in the Danish constitution does it say, that the Queen has to do her broadcast. It is a tradition started by Margrethe's grandfather Christian X.

But of course. Obligation was, perhaps, not the right word as such. A New Years broadcast is mentioned no where in the Danish constitution, but being the incumbant sovereign, it would therefore be a personal preference, to continue the practice initiated by her late grandfather and so remains a governing tradition.

There is a difference

Indeed there is.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom