|
|
|
|||||||
| Portal | Royal Articles | Royal Calendar | Register | FAQ | Members List | Royal Links | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
|
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
|
#1
12-01-2006, 10:36 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Discussion About CP Frederik's and CP Mary's Prenuptial Agreement
This article on Ekstra Bladet’s website, and also the tabloid news paper’s cover story today, says that the prenuptial agreement of TRH The Crown Prince Couple, originally registered on May 14, 2004, has been changed.
According the original agreement, HRH Crown Prince Frederik was obligated to buy his wife a suitable residence and to pay her a one-and-for-all amount of money, were the couple to divorce. However, according to the new prenuptial agreement, which was registered shortly before the couple went to Tasmania, The Crown Prince is obliged to do neither of those two things. It thus puts The Crown Princess in a less desirable situation in the event of a divorce. The lawyer who drew up both the original and new agreements, Mr. Henrik Wedell-Wedellsborg, has no comment in regard to the changes made. /Lasse 
|
|
#2
12-01-2006, 11:05 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
It doesn't seem to make sense at all. They are both obviously happily together after signing. Thus, if it was signed, it was signed in agreement. Even if she firmly believed in the happy future of her marriage, Mary has a law degree. People with that kind of education don't sign their rights away if there is no need. So - what does she win in exchange that she considers to be more important than a house and a lump sum? Sorry, but the way the story is presented I don't believe it. Edit: I thought about the whole story and have come to the conclusion that it - if it is true - has something to do with the fact that Mary is the mother of the future king and going to be the mother of a spare - be he/she prince or princess. Maybe some changes have been necessary (I don''t think any newspaper will invent such a story!) to secure Mary's position or the Royal family wanted to make sure that in any case she would keep her right to a closeness with her children. just recently Christian has been officially added to the line of succession - maybe this means that his mother became an official person in her own right which might warrant additional rights and privileges in case of a divorce. I mean, a country that needs a special act of parliament to add the firstborn son of the Crown Prince to the line of succession could well have rules for the mother of the said child which need to be addressed in a contract? And it''s always better to fix these stipulation as long as there is love between the two parties - that very often helps to make sure that there is love forever. Plus: what is a "less desirable position"? If you're of the opinion that a house of your own and a fixed sum of money is more desirable than, let's say, the right to have appartments at the Royal Palace plus an official apanage then it's okay to say that. But if you're thinking the other way round, then maybe the new stipulatioons are better for Mary. I simply can't believe that in a country that modern when it comes to viewing a family and the rights of a mother a wife will be "rewarded" for her children with a worse position than she was in before she she even married or proved that she could be a mother. That simply makes no sense...
__________________
'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. Last edited by Jo of Palatine; 12-01-2006 at 12:04 PM.
|
|
#3
12-01-2006, 01:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Whether the story is true or not, I obviously cannot say, only that it is on Ekstra Bladet’s and several other Danish websites. As to the presentation, I have simply presented the main aspects of the article which does not in any way give mention of new benefits for HRH Crown Princess Mary in the event of a divorce. Moreover, an article at TV2’s website states that the fact that the couple has total, separate estate has not been changed. Personally, I thought that they had maybe bought an estate on Tasmania in the name of Crown Princess Mary. This way, she would have a place suitable for a former royal, but it would also present difficulties if HRH Prince Christian was still a child at the time of the hypothetical divorce. However, I think that Jo of Palatine is right concluding that the stipulations of the previous agreement are not necessary anymore, seeing that Crown Princess Mary is now the mother of a king to be! And let us hope that the stipulations of the prenuptial agreement will never come into prominence. /Lasse
|
|
#4
12-01-2006, 03:09 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I'm really sorry if you got the impression that my thoughts were directed against your post. On the contrary - I'm really thankful that you informed us of this newspaper report. Please, keep on watching for eventual continuing reports of this topic as I don't doubt the RF will feel they have to say something about it when people could get the impression that there is "something wrong in the state of Denmark"... Thank you again and greetings from your neighbouring country, Jo
__________________
'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.
|
|
#5
12-01-2006, 03:54 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
It's clever, but is it art? ~Rudyard Kipling
|
|
#7
12-01-2006, 04:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I did not in any way feel offended by your post, but simply felt the need to clarify, both to you and to other posters, the fact that what I wrote was just a summary of a news paper article and that I was in no way expressing any opinions of my own - I would hate to have my opinions confused with those of Ekstra Bladet  And you can put your trust in my keeping on watching for further reports on this manner. I feel confident that Mrs. Lis M. Frederiksen, press secretary of the Royal Danish Court, will have a lot of phone calls Monday morning on this topic, and then, we will probably be further informed. All the best, Lasse 
|
|
#8
12-01-2006, 05:12 PM
|
||||
|
||||
This story was in the Danish news tonight; IMO, there was an underlying suggestion in the coverage that the divorce between Joachim and Alexandra had been a costly affair and that the DRF would probably seek to avoid anything similar in the - hopefully hypothetical - event of another royal divorce.
__________________
Some people say that cats are sneaky, evil, and cruel. True, and they have many other fine qualities as well.
|
|
#9
12-01-2006, 05:42 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
#10
12-02-2006, 05:28 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
Some people say that cats are sneaky, evil, and cruel. True, and they have many other fine qualities as well.
|
|
#11
12-02-2006, 05:44 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
i read in a newspaper from my country that ekstra bladet was the newspaper to make this information public and that they had a photo of the legal document.
it also said that this are measures that the royal family decided to take after the divorce of joachim and alexandra. in their prenup it mentioned that alexandra may choose the house she wanted, which caused that joachim had to sell properties in order to buy the house alexandra chose, of up to a million dollars. it mentions that it's not like mary won't get anything if they divorced, but the house will be 'chosen' by frederik and so will the amount of money he gives her as a pension.
__________________
Sign the United Nations Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare: http://www.animalsmatter.org/ YOUR DAILY CLICK HELPS ANIMALS SURVIVE! Your daily click provides food for an animal in a shelter or sanctuary. Feed an animal in need, click for free. http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/
|
|
#12
12-02-2006, 06:36 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I don't know the danish law about the wedding agreements, but it seems to me very strange that we can change such agreement after some years of wedding only because an eventual divorce could be expansive !
1. Mary is graduate in law and has to know the conditions in which we can change some wedding agreement. If it's not her speciality we can think that she has her own lawyers. 2. The difference between Mary and Alexandra is not acceptable in law and we can imagine that in case of divorce Mary can be helped by some lawyers very acurate in this field. 3. As I don't know this topic, I stay a little bit astonished that the Royal House of Denmark could pretend to change a contract only because the first one could be very expansive in its occurrencies. I find this event quiet strange and I have in mind the feeling that it's only to forbid Mary to ask divorce that this change had be done. And I repeat, to change such contact, you have to have serious reasons to do it legally. Strange!
|
|
#13
12-02-2006, 08:20 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I still maintain the argument of #133 as the most plausible, i.e. that changes have been made, with the conscent of both HRH The Crown Prince and HRH The Crown Princess, as a result of The Crown Princess' elevated status after the birth of an heir to the Danish throne. Thus, she is now a part of the Danish Royal Family, and will, unlike HH Princess Alexandra, maintain being so even in the event of a divorce. Hence, Crown Princess Mary is now automatically entitled to royal privileges such as appropriate housing (a royal palace) and apanage, which is why the stipulations regarding Crown Prince Frederik supplying her with said things are no longer called for. /Lasse
|
|
#14
12-02-2006, 10:01 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
^ That seems very plausible. Also, there might be some legal language that sums all this up in a simple way that we wouldn't understand of would gloss over if we read the new agreement. I'm sure Mary was making the best decision for her and the kids.
__________________
Für Gott, Fürst und Vaterland "It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife" Pride and Prejudice
|
|
#15
12-02-2006, 11:22 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
It's the reason why I ask to me what this kind of procedure means really whithout to have any words for the answer
|
|
#16
12-02-2006, 01:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
All I can say is I hope it [divorce] never happens for them as it is a most terrible business. I am not saying that I don't think it is a topic for discussion but I think I'll clock out til it's over because the reality is worse than anything. ONLY IMO.
|
|
#17
12-02-2006, 08:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I would have thought that her limited knowledge of law would help- contract law is not that complex- BTW-I would also have thought that the Australian system would be like the British and North American system- anyone can just about get a degree but you have to have high grades to go on and do the post grad exams and articling. That is why many with law degrees do not pursue a law career because they are in actual fact not highly qualified. Remember all the unis want is to make money and hand out degrees to as many as possible.
Mary is fine- she would not have signed this contract if she did not feel secure.
|
|
#18
12-02-2006, 08:30 PM
|
