Press Reports about Carl Philip and Sofia Hellqvist, Part 1: Jan. 2010 - April 2012

[Lulu_tka]

of course sooner or later CP will find girl or women who really will love him coz love for money or status that he have can't be forever!

 

[ortino]

and many women think the men love them but it's not true. Wealthy men are well known for chasing leggy models with big boobs. I've no sympathy.

Agree! 100%. I wish they would both come out and speak publicy about their relationship. Although, it is a private matter so why should they? Anyway didnt the prince come out and say he didn't have a girlfirend back in March?

 

[KittyAtlanta]

I see nothing wrong with a woman "scouting" out a man, and vice versa. I've done it myself. HOWEVER, C-P has to exert some prudence when it comes to liasons. In the old days (50s, 60s), the press/media did not hound royalty as they now do. News of weddings, deaths and births were announced, but the private/potentially embarrassing things were not divulged. I liked it better then.

 

[LadyFinn]

According to these articles, Sofia has been invited to dinner in Solliden and she has met the King and the Queen.
Sofia åt middag med kungen & Silvia | MSN Starlounge
Google Translate

Sofia på middag hos kungaparet | Nyheter | Aftonbladet

 

[Lulu_tka]

Maybe CP is serious in love Sofia if he decides to introduce her to parents?

 

[Lola]

Well, now she surely is more than a fling. But this meeting is IMO nothing "big"
The king and queen have met all partners of their children pretty early and with the ongoing talk since January, they were probably really curious about this woman. The article says the initiative came from their side.

 

[Monna]

So it`s a real relationship, that`s nice. Sofia is a very beautiful woman IMO. As for her past - she never posed nude, did she? In that photo with the snake certain parts of her body are covered, so we can see as much as if she wore bikini. I don`t say that I like the photo, I only say it doesn`t make her inacceptable as the prince`s girlfriend. And those rumours about scounting and golddigging - well, "a friend" is not a reliable source.
Sofia may have qualities to be a good princess, despite her tv and modeling career. We don`t know her, and I think that some comments here are too harsh...

 

[Lighthouse]

The article says the initiative came from their side.

I've got terrible vertigo looking down the crevice of royal standards.

 

[LadyFinn]

Expressen writes that the Slitz-magazine is publishing the photos of Sofia again now. (not a surprise). The photos were taken in 2005 or 2006.
Slitz viker ut Sofia igen - Nyheter - Senaste nytt | Expressen
Google Translate
Same story ín Aftonbladet
”Sofia tycker det är jobbigt” | Nyheter | Aftonbladet

 

[amedea]

A reality starlet-naked model-etc dining with the Royals sounds like a cheap comedy to me.
Maybe this means that the SRF is down to earth and open to meet all their subjects, but to me it just means they lack the necessary dignity and consciousness of their role.
In moments like this I'm a republican myself!

 

[Monna]

So she did pose naked . I`m afraid I have to change my opinion...

 

[Lumutqueen]

Why are you changing your opinion, because of an old photo?

 

[Monna]

Why are you changing your opinion, because of an old photo?

In general I have little respect for women who decide to show themselves like that. On the other hand, it`s not the worst thing one could do, of course, and it doesn`t mean Sofia is a bad person. I just changed my opinion from positive to neutral - let`s see how the relationship will progress.

 

[Boris]

So it`s a real relationship, that`s nice. Sofia is a very beautiful woman IMO. As for her past - she never posed nude, did she?

Yes, she did a different photo session posing completely nude.
The pics are neither 'artistic' nor very appealing... a link to them was posted here once some months ago, but removed because it doesn't comply with this forum's rules.

The invitation should indeed be seen as a sign that it's rather a relationship than a fling, but it does not automatically constitute a sign of approval.
The King and Queen have met all their children's partners quite early on, once it was clear that the connection to the respective person was more than an affair.
The meeting could surely have gone many different ways...
Unless Sofia H. starts getting invited to the traditional Drottningholm Palace Sunday family dinners, it's hard to say whether The King - and particularly The Queen, I'd say - approve of her as Carl Philip's girlfriend or not.

 

[Lighthouse]

Why are you changing your opinion, because of an old photo?

Because she ain't no princess!

 

[Liriel]

Royals are not just like us, but they seem to be becoming that way......and what a shame
Sorry,but is...... the last generation ...for Monarchy
how more people common
PC: "we are just ordinary men of the people" so absurd, because no, you are not!

 

[Idriel]

I don't find the picture remotely shocking. It's not pornography and there is nothing dirty or vile about a naked body (whatever the church may say) . It's actually an improvement over the snake picture because at least she isn't covered in yellow grease.
Carla Bruni has done far more explicit pictures (her full-frontal nudes are all over the internet).

I do agree with the posters who don't want to see her as a princess. I disapprove of her for the same reasons I disapprove of some other royal girlfriends and wives (too common and lackluster, brings nothing to the table, no charisma, etc.) .
However I have no issue with her nude pictures, and I certainly won't judge her character and intelligence based on that.

 

[Lighthouse]

I don't find the picture remotely shocking. It's not pornography and there is nothing dirty or vile about a naked body (whatever the church may say) .

Are we looking at the same picture? No one, church or whatever, ever suggested the naked body is shocking, dirty or vile! I disagree with your attempt to ignore the obvious here. The woman is posing naked with only sexy black shoes on. It's obviously meant to be erotic and to get a sexual response from men who drool over pictures of anonymous women like this. It's done in the spirit of smut. There is a difference between nudity and smut.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Because she ain't no princess!

The question wasn't directed at you, and I do not understand your answer?

Royals are not just like us, but they seem to be becoming that way......and what a shame
Sorry,but is...... the last generation ...for Monarchy
how more people common
PC: "we are just ordinary men of the people" so absurd, because no, you are not!

They are not ordinary people, they live in palaces, they wear tiara's and tuxedos on a daily basis. What does your comment have to do with the love life of CP?

I don't find the picture remotely shocking. It's not pornography and there is nothing dirty or vile about a naked body (whatever the church may say) . It's actually an improvement over the snake picture because at least she isn't covered in yellow grease.
Carla Bruni has done far more explicit pictures (her full-frontal nudes are all over the internet).

I do agree with the posters who don't want to see her as a princess. I disapprove of her for the same reasons I disapprove of some other royal girlfriends and wives (too common and lackluster, brings nothing to the table, no charisma, etc.) .
However I have no issue with her nude pictures, and I certainly won't judge her character and intelligence based on that.

I agree, that i do not find the picture at all shocking, so she posed naked, so what? And, lots of other people have done the same. We have no idea why she did it, maybe she needed to money? Just like you say, Carla Bruni's pictures are much worse. I do not know enough about her to judge whether she would be a good princess or not, but I do not think she should be excluding from the chance of marrying CP just because of her nude pictures.

Are we looking at the same picture? No one, church or whatever, ever suggested the naked body is shocking, dirty or vile! I disagree with your attempt to ignore the obvious here. The woman is posing naked with only sexy black shoes on. It's obviously meant to be erotic and to get a sexual response from men who drool over pictures of anonymous women like this. It's done in the spirit of smut. There is a difference between nudity and smut.

The church has suggested a lot of times that images of the naked body in this fashion are vile, shocking and dirty. Ignore the obvious? Just because she posed naked makes her a ultimate bad person?
You could walk down the street and get a sexual response from a man, you don't have to be completely naked to do that. Yes there is a difference between nudity and "smut", it is your opinion that this is "smut" and in my opinion it is Sofia posing naked, for whatever reason she wanted to.

 

[Lighthouse]

The question wasn't directed at you, and I do not understand your answer?

What I actually meant was that she does not appear to be a princess in the making.

btw Lumutqueen, since I spend so much of my time reading through all your long posts in just about every section of TRF, would you kindky forgive me for answering a question that wasn't asked of me. It was only one line! Thanks.

Oh I nearly forgot, one of the reasons I thought the photo was sexual was because she's slunk to the floor next to the bathtub in her black shoes. It might be your opinion that it's just a nude picture but that doesn't seem to be the point of the picture.

 

[Lumutqueen]

What I actually meant was that she does not appear to be a princess in the making.

btw Lumutqueen, since I spend so much of my time reading through all your long posts in just about every section of TRF, would you kindky forgive me for answering a question that wasn't asked of me. It was only one line! Thanks.

Oh I nearly forgot, one of the reasons I thought the photo was sexual was because she's slunk to the floor next to the bathtub in her black shoes. It might be your opinion that it's just a nude picture but that doesn't seem to be the point of the picture.

Sorry for my long posts, sometimes I have a lot to say.
Maybe she is slumped on the floor because she is sleepy? And has yet to take of her shoes?

Also I would still like to ask about your comment, she doesn't appear to be a princess in the making? What has that got to do with my question about why Monna changed her opinion?

 

[amedea]

That picture is erotic and vulgar, Carla Bruni's ones are of a completely different kind and of a much higher level.
Being a royal is not "wearing tiaras, tuxedos and living in castles" but it's having peculiar responsabilities and duties and living with a peculiar dignity. All things that are very far away from what Sofia is.
I don't judge her, she can really be very intelligent and a wonderful person even if she posed naked for vulgar pics, but she cannot be princess material in a minimum serious monarchy. That's all.

 

[Lumutqueen]

That picture is erotic and vulgar, Carla Bruni's ones are of a completely different kind and of a much higher level.
Being a royal is not "wearing tiaras, tuxedos and living in castles" but it's having peculiar responsabilities and duties and living with a peculiar dignity. All things that are very far away from what Sofia is.
I don't judge her, she can really be very intelligent and a wonderful person even if she posed naked for vulgar pics, but she cannot be princess material in a minimum serious monarchy. That's all.

But as a royal you do wear Tiara's, Tuxedo's and live in a palace.
This was my way of stating that commoners are different to the royals.

Sofia isn't a royal, so she does not have the responsibilities of a royal or the duties.

She cannot be princess material in a minimum serious monarchy? I'm confused as to what you mean?

 

[Idriel]

Are we looking at the same picture? No one, church or whatever, ever suggested the naked body is shocking, dirty or vile! I disagree with your attempt to ignore the obvious here. The woman is posing naked with only sexy black shoes on. It's obviously meant to be erotic and to get a sexual response from men who drool over pictures of anonymous women like this. It's done in the spirit of smut. There is a difference between nudity and smut.

A naked picture of Sofia is always going to elicit an erotic response from men because she is a beautiful woman with a sexy body. Period. That shot isn't anywhere near pornography.

Carla Bruni's pictures are not different in essence. She was photographed by more talented photographers so the pictures look better, and her body is not particularly voluptuous or sexy so the erotic charge is lower but that doesn't change the fact that I know exactly what her t*** & a** look like, and even how she styles her topiary.

I still stand by my point that the majority of taboo and uneasy people have regarding nudity and sexuality are down to religion and the teaching of the Church. That's OT though so I won't pursue this line of discussion.

 

[Lorette]

Why, if she will have no responsabilities and duties, should the swedish people pay her - and her offspring - a luxurious lifestyle? The Sarkozys are elected for a limited timespan and his children will have to make a living on their own (though I'm sure he will see that it is eased a bit by his connections....) The swiss view on the Sarkozys is that he is a ridiculous narcisstic man and she is an equally narcissistic aging beauty who took the last chance for yet another cup full of fame and page one on the glossy magazines. But indeed she was a model of some standing and the nude pictures of her where by first class photographers and not just cheap centrefold stuff.
It's got nothing to do with the human body being dirty or whatever, but the heads of a community should have a bit of dignity or the people themselves will loose it, or will loose patience with them. So no, I think she cannot be princess in a serious monarchy, because she lacks dignity.
I think that prince CP would be better off anyway if he had to earn a living, it might change him from a boy of thirtysomething into a man who is more than just a pretty face in an uniform. In that respect, backrow royals and models are the same, all they have to do is to be photogenic. Maybe that is what they got in common?

 

[Lumutqueen]

Why, if she will have no responsabilities and duties, should the swedish people pay her - and her offspring - a luxurious lifestyle?


I think that prince CP would be better off anyway if he had to earn a living, it might change him from a boy of thirtysomething into a man who is more than just a pretty face in an uniform. In that respect, backrow royals and models are the same, all they have to do is to be photogenic. Maybe that is what they got in common?

If she becomes a Princess, she will have responsibilities and duties to fulfill.

Also how is he suppose to earn a living?

 

[Idriel]

Why, if she will have no responsabilities and duties, should the swedish people pay her - and her offspring - a luxurious lifestyle? The Sarkozys are elected [ETC.]

I won't bother quoting your entire post but I agree with everything you said (trust me, your opinion of the Sarkozys is also widely shared in France), with one exception.

Sofia lacks dignity? How so? Is that because she posed nude?
I guess we will have to agree to disagree on that. Some people will never get over those pictures and will use them to judge her character and values, other (such as me), won't ever understand what the fuss is about because to them, having dignity is about how you treat people: how loyal you are to those who matter to you, how civil you are to strangers, how respectful to your elders and how compassionate to those in need.

I fail to see how getting your kit off for a photo-shoot is in any way relevant here.

 

[Anne83]

Carl Philip dates the wrong women Sophie or Emma aren't suitable
He must respect the Monarchy and choose a Princess Maybe Princess Beatrice of York or Theodora of Greece or Alexandra of Louxembourg
Be smart, CP

 

[amedea]

But as a royal you do wear Tiara's, Tuxedo's and live in a palace.
This was my way of stating that commoners are different to the royals.

Sofia isn't a royal, so she does not have the responsibilities of a royal or the duties.

She cannot be princess material in a minimum serious monarchy? I'm confused as to what you mean?

I mean that a prince of a royal family that is a minimum serious do not marry girls like Sofia unless he renounce his position.

 

[Anne83]

Amedea is right