Frederik & Mary's Interview with German Vogue about Amalienborg: December 2010

[Madame Royale]

for an issue of Vanity Fair called "Young Hip and Royal".

If I may extract, and make a point here in general

In my view, at least the VOGUE article serves a purpose in that it reviews the use of contemporary art, painted by contemporary artists, endorsed by a contemporary couple and shown in an contemporary setting (ie; the renovation).

Some have suggested the article is an attempt to self promote, yet articles about being "young, hip and royal" are not considered to be a self promoting look into a lifestyle lived by the minority? Now I have no issue with that, it didn't phase me whatsoever, but to co-operate with an article piece that's only function is to celebrate their social position, relative youth and lifestyle at large is nothing short of self promoting.

The pictures are nice, whether or not royals should be posing as celebrities and fashion models is a different debate. Are they royal or are they celebrities?

I understand your sentiment. I myself don't think of the royals as celebrities and never have and appearing in editorial pieces such as these doesn't sway that opinion.

I for one was delighted to learn that Mary had turned down Oprah's invitation to appear on her talk show during the IOC gathering in Copenhagen of last year. I do believe that Mary would understand who she is and what she is not. And celebrities is not something I think the Danish Royal Family consider themselves to be. They know who they are and they would surely understand the interest shown in them, their lives, their homes etc and so forth. A rather light hearted photoshoot with a few snaps is hardly a sell out.

Marie Chantal is in my opinion, a good exmaple of a socialite with a title. A business woman, certainly, but just as much an enthusiastic self promoter all the same. The photo's of her, some time ago it should be noted, on the red carpet with 'Lagerfeld' molesting her waist were not at all charming. Though she married into a deposed royal family so I imagine some believe it's considered 'acceptable'...

 

[TLLK]

Its one of the worst posing I've ever seen, especially because the children are included in these unnatural and staged so called "art" pictures. Its very "Vogue" etc, celebrity style, something that obiviously attracts Frederik and Mary but this time its horrible to see Isabella and Christian styled like little princess / aristocrat posing with their parents almost like accessories.

To me there is no family unit that is moving into a new house but individual empty posing, showing off who they are and what they have. Very soulless and tacky pictures that I would expect from the usual suspects, various american moviestars who dont mind instrumentalising their children but not from a CP couple.

I have to agree. After viewing some of these photos I wish they had opted for a more casual setting and a less "celebrity" style.

 

[Aotearoagal]

I still cannot really decide what to think about the photoshoot.
First of all I have to admit that I am a huge fan of Vogue photoshoots. Personally I find most of them very artistic. The settings are usually great.
The same goes for this photoshoot. I like the idea of the family between the boxes. Looks fun. Fashionable. Very Vogue-style. All of the pictures are very well done.
So, I think the pictures themselves are great.
I just don't know if I really like when Royals are posing for photoshoots like that. But I have to disagree that they look like celebrities in that pictures.
Hachhh... I just don't know why I cannot really take to the pictures. I cannot even describe it.

The best royal photos are the ones with warmth and engagement - either between the people in the photo, or the subjects of the photo and the viewer. These photos are of a certain "late Annie Leibovitz" style - rather gothic and stilted. I think they do Fred, Mary and their family a disservice, making them look stiff and unnatural. Royals get plenty of opportunity to be seen being stiff and formal at events - at home, let's see them actually communicated. From these photos you would think little Isabella was the only normal member of the family! Which we know not to be the case - they are a close and happy family, soon to be a brood!

In that respect I would agree Madame Royale.

To be fair, I think that when people refer to "Mary Donaldson" they are referring to the very natural and lovely girl she was - and still is but now beneath a layer of DUTY. I do agree that these formal portraits are "Crown Princess" but that "Mary Donaldson" is still very much in there! (Somewhere!) One's maiden name is always there in fact - you can revert to your maiden name of course, if you divorce or even if you are widowed. Viva Mary Donaldson say I! I for one don't object in the least to being reminded of Mary's Tasmanian/Scotch origins ...

 

[Emmily]

No they didn't, the Norwegian CP couple along with other young royals (Willem-Alexander and Maxima, Pavlos and Marie-Chantal) posed for Testino for an issue of Vanity Fair called "Young Hip and Royal". The British princes didn't pose but William's official 18th birthday photos were used, he was on the cover.

You're correct, my mistake.

 

[Madame Royale]

To be fair, I think that when people refer to "Mary Donaldson" they are referring to the very natural and lovely girl she was - and still is but now beneath a layer of DUTY. I do agree that these formal portraits are "Crown Princess" but that "Mary Donaldson" is still very much in there! (Somewhere!) One's maiden name is always there in fact - you can revert to your maiden name of course, if you divorce or even if you are widowed. Viva Mary Donaldson say I! I for one don't object in the least to being reminded of Mary's Tasmanian/Scotch origins ...

Most people who have ever referred to her as Mary Donaldson on these forums have either been banned, due to gross misconduct as a poster, or have toned it down because their remarks were anything but cordial. Theres been a tendancy to seem polite when they first start posting, however, the insults start flying and the vitriol that gets laden on the women is nothing short of ghastly thereafter. It happened as recently as a few months back and sure as anything the person who insisted they thought her 'pretty' and lovely, then had a "swift" change of heart and likened her to a social climbing sex worker. So they attempt, however poorly, to take others for a fool but their intentions are pretty damn obvious if you ask me...

Furthermore, not that I am a member, but I know that they refer to her as Mary Donaldson (and that's when they are amiable) on message boards that have been formed to speak ill of her and others.

So I definitly disagree that the majority of people refer to her as Mary Donaldson because they think her a 'lovely' and 'natural' girl. Far from it.

Though that you should think of her in that way, and with your reasoning, is quite lovely

 

[Charlotte1]

Some have suggested the article is an attempt to self promote, yet articles about being "young, hip and royal" are not considered to be a self promoting look into a lifestyle lived by the minority? Now I have no issue with that, it didn't phase me whatsoever, but to co-operate with an article piece that's only function is to celebrate their social position, relative youth and lifestyle at large is nothing short of self promoting.

While the magazine (appealing to youth market) labelled the story 'young hip and royal' the royals themselves were promoting their representative roles. They are representatives for their countries and the photos were them presenting royalty not as something that young people's grandmothers were interesting in. But rather they were relevant to young people today as well. It's wasn't the minority lifestyle as such but rather 'we have this job, we're young like you are, this is how we're trying to be relevant'. (William still being at school didn't count! His pictures weren't posed especially for Vanity Fair, but just used by them)

I understand your sentiment. I myself don't think of the royals as celebrities and never have and appearing in editorial pieces such as these doesn't sway that opinion.

Now if your opinion is that appearing in Vogue doesn't mean royals are presented as celebrities, then that's well and good, it doesn't necessarily mean others agree with that view. Diana was a royal whose status very much went into the field of celebrity, posing for glossy fashion shoots, (Vogue, Testino) all pushed her into the celebrity arena.

I for one was delighted to learn that Mary had turned down Oprah's invitation to appear on her talk show during the IOC gathering in Copenhagen of last year. I do believe that Mary would understand who she is and what she is not. And celebrities is not something I think the Danish Royal Family consider themselves to be. They know who they are and they would surely understand the interest shown in them, their lives, their homes etc and so forth. A rather light hearted photoshoot with a few snaps is hardly a sell out.

But a point to be made here about Oprah in Europe she is not quite the A-class celebrity/TV personality that she is in the US and after the hype of the past week, in Australia. (She is something of a nonentity) Turning down Oprah was not a big deal, Mary had nothing to promote (unlike Rania who uses Oprah to appeal to middle American women and to show that not all Muslims are terrorist. Rania is very media savvy) So while Americans and perhaps Australians gasp 'wow she turned down Oprah!' Europeans are more 'Eh, it's just a TV show, no big deal'

Marie Chantal is in my opinion, a good exmaple of a socialite with a title. A business woman, certainly, but just as much an enthusiastic self promoter all the same. The photo's of her, some time ago it should be noted, on the red carpet with 'Lagerfeld' molesting her waist were not at all charming. Though she married into a deposed royal family so I imagine some believe it's considered 'acceptable'...

Marie-Chantal at the beginning of her marriage was a socialite, she has gone well beyond that now. She's far more than 'a woman who lunches' she's quite a good business woman and part of that is marketing. She uses the magazines who are interested in her to market her children's clothing line. There are far less 'first night' type photos of her and Pavlos, they have become quite rare in the last 2 years.

So a comparison can be made, a non-reigning royal family do glossy fashion magazine shoots. Pavlos & MC have done ones with decorating magazines when they moved into their new London home. Celebrities? I would venture yes. Mary and Frederik do the same, celebrities or royals?

 

[wiwaxia]

Sorry, I don't mean to sound too harsh but that taxpayer thing is one of my pet aversions around these boards

Why would that be UserDane? It is after all the very essence of their existence, and 345 million kroner per annum is certainly worth discussing, without the infusion of tax payers money they would be passé.

 

[UserDane]

Why would that be UserDane? It is after all the very essence of their existence, and 345 million kroner per annum is certainly worth discussing, without the infusion of tax payers money they would be passé.

Because once the individual royal houses have received their grants from the state (tax payers) I don't see how we, the taxpayers, can claim that we are entitled to know how, when and where and for what purposes they spend their money. As long as the royals fulfil their part of the bargain - for Queen Margrethe that is for example to use most of her grant to maintain the castles she has a right of occupation to - this is it! If one royal house decide to use some of their funds for travelling, another on using a day or two on a photo shoot (probably no money involved), a third on something quite different - this is just not our business and we should keep our noses out of their private money matters.

Claiming that a day of a photo shoot must upset the tax payers is downright silly IMO. People really need to get this tax payer thing into perspective. How the tax payer even got into this discussion about a photo shoot still beats me

I have noticed that is often people who do not live in monarchies who are extremely focused on 'the hard-suffering tax payers' in monarchies. I don't for one moment believe that a presidency would be cheaper for the tax payers. It's OK to have the origin of the money of individual royal houses in mind, but some really need to get some perspective into it. It's not like the royals are the tax payers' financial hostages.

 

[nwinther]

My first thought on this comment of yours was, if she is able to do hour long shoots, to dress up several times with different hair syle and make-up and do one shot over and over again for don't know how many hours, than she may be able to partake her royal duties still. But this would be very mean towards a pregnant woman, so I respect that we should not regard this shooting time as working time.

I was just trying to find an answer to the question whether there should be a purpose given to justify this shooting.

At the time of the shooting, she was still not on maternity leave, making your entire post moot.

But even if it wasn't - don't you see a difference between having your picture taken (or modelling) in your own home, under private circumstances, minutes away from the hospital, and then attending a conference, in public, hours away from the hospital? In this scenario, if Mary feels ill or uncomfortable, she can call a break. With modern technology, it's possible to get a good shot of her in a matter of minutes and send her to rest, finishing the shoot with the rest of the family and compose the final images on a computer (they do that anyway). Hence, this shoot may not have been such a terrible ordeal (btw. stop watching so many "...Next top Model"-shows).
If she is in a public engagement, and she leaves or fail to participate in some part of the visit the press and public will be all over her, exaggerating everything. The public appearances alone will put more stress on her than any photo-shoot ever will.

This way she manages to perform a duty while not being fully available - and I for one think that's admirable.

 

[Muhler]

Why would that be UserDane? It is after all the very essence of their existence, and 345 million kroner per annum is certainly worth discussing, without the infusion of tax payers money they would be passé.

I share that sentiment with UserDane, wholeheartedly as well.

The taxpayer argument, usually have my eyes rolling as well.
It's in my opinion an excuse to complain about expenses for things someone does not want to spend money on.

And according to the just published report from the government about the total expenses of the DRF, I pay about 63 DKK a year to the DRF.
That's a little more than 5 DKK a month, or 1 $ US a month.

So it's hardly an economic issue for me.

 

[antonieta]

And i'm just asking, why does there have to be a specific reason as to why the photoshoot was taken?

And I ask: would have been any problem if the photoshoot was taken for a specific reason?

 

[stephanievl]

The pictures are nice but for me it is more something for celeberty's and not royalty.

I also don't feel any warmth. the family picture is just 4 people standing very far away from each other. The picture of Mary with Isabella could be very nice if she had looked to her daughter instead of the camera.

I prefer family pictures as they are publisher in Belgium, Holland and Norway. Last Year the Belgian crown price couple also did a photo shoot for a book but these picture are so diffrent from these ones. ( see: http://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...ture-thread-part-2-a-10436-2.html#post1140976)

It is also remarkable that we see this fashion shoots for magazines so often with Mary. Other crownprincesses did it also but then once and not so often.

 

[princess carmen]

I liked the photos they were different I also like the sweet ones as well. It is nice to see them in a different fun way not so serious.

 

[Sternchen]

Very true.

Tons of these pictures are in the books I mentioned...Royalty in Vogue and The Royal Potraits by Cecil Beaton.

I am pretty sure the author took the photos and someone wrote an accompanying story. Of what, I don't know. Royalty was even more of mystery then.

So has anyone read the actual article? I have seen snippets of what it contains but no one to say they have read it and learned something new.

Yep, proud owner since yesterday, this is why I posted some excerpts, I hope I can translate it over the weekend

 

[Dierna23]

The pictures are nice but for me it is more something for celeberty's and not royalty.

I agree with what you said about the lack of warmth in the pictures. This is often the case with Vogue shots, though. In the links you posted Mary looks great, but she's a princess not a model. I mean, for a princess who has been criticized that she's too much into designer fashion etc, it's all a bit too much. Just my opinion.

 

[wiwaxia]

Because once the individual royal houses have received their grants from the state (tax payers) I don't see how we, the taxpayers, can claim that we are entitled to know how, when and where and for what purposes they spend their money. As long as the royals fulfil their part of the bargain - for Queen Margrethe that is for example to use most of her grant to maintain the castles she has a right of occupation to - this is it! If one royal house decide to use some of their funds for travelling, another on using a day or two on a photo shoot (probably no money involved), a third on something quite different - this is just not our business and we should keep our noses out of their private money matters.

Claiming that a day of a photo shoot must upset the tax payers is downright silly IMO. People really need to get this tax payer thing into perspective. How the tax payer even got into this discussion about a photo shoot still beats me

I have noticed that is often people who do not live in monarchies who are extremely focused on 'the hard-suffering tax payers' in monarchies. I don't for one moment believe that a presidency would be cheaper for the tax payers. It's OK to have the origin of the money of individual royal houses in mind, but some really need to get some perspective into it. It's not like the royals are the tax payers' financial hostages.

I wouldn't say that one hasn't the right to question once the money is handed over from public funds, it's no different from asking where the money is going as regards schools/hospitals etc, not that I'm interested in what new shoes the Queen has just purchased, but how the royals dispose of such a vast amount of money is in the public interest, isn't that democracy!


If a photo shoot floats the CPCouples boat, then fine by me, it just makes them look Hollywood, and not in the least bit regal, but then that is my point of view.


I don't know the going rate economically between a Queen/King or a president, but I know that the latter has to prove themselves worthy, and the other inherits regardless of ability...as for 'financial hostages' well the DRF are exactly that, without the tax, and subsequently the annual apanage, they wouldn't be anywhere, well at least not in Amalineborg, or the handful of other residences, and it seems there are people who have different perspectives than yours...it isn't illegal...

Thanks for your answer!

 

[Sternchen]

But they give out a financial report each year. And unlike the money that goes to hospitals, there is no purpose how to spend it connected to the apannage

 

[sm1939]

the pictures are fine , for movie stars , I expected a bit more from this crown Prince and Princess Couple , I can, so see the monaco royal doing this , but it just doesnt sit right for the demark lot , but that is just my thoughts.

 

[Muhler]

I don't know the going rate economically between a Queen/King or a president, but I know that the latter has to prove themselves worthy, and the other inherits regardless of ability...

Eeh, a monarch also has to prove his/her worth. Or the monarchy will eventually be abolished.

Also, in many republics the president (as formal head of state, not leader of the government) is not elected in a general election, but by the parliaments.
In these case the presidents are not chosen so much based on merit but perhaps more on who the politicians can agree on chosing. - And a president chosen as a compromise may not be the most worthy.

 

[UserDane]

I wouldn't say that one hasn't the right to question once the money is handed over from public funds, it's no different from asking where the money is going as regards schools/hospitals etc, not that I'm interested in what new shoes the Queen has just purchased, but how the royals dispose of such a vast amount of money is the public interest, isn't that democracy!

Sternchen has already answered that - they publish a detailed financial report each year.

If a photo shoot floats the CPCouples boat, then fine by me, it just makes them look Hollywood, and not in the least bit regal, but then that is my point of view.

And your point of view is fine by me; we can definitely agree to disagree

 

[wiwaxia]

Eeh, a monarch also has to prove his/her worth. Or the monarchy will eventually be abolished.

Also, in many republics the president (as formal head of state, not leader of the government) is not elected in a general election, but by the parliaments.
In these case the presidents are not chosen so much based on merit but perhaps more on who the politicians can agree on chosing. - And a president chosen as a compromise may not be the most worthy. [/QUOTE


Also, in many republics the president (as formal head of state, not leader of the government) is not elected in a general election, but by the parliaments.
In these case the presidents are not chosen so much based on merit but perhaps more on who the politicians can agree on chosing. - And a president chosen as a compromise may not be the most worthy.

There's no formal vote for a monarch, it is a 'birthright' they do not have to prove any form for ability to be representatives of their house, it is an automatic procedure for life, presidents have to shop for votes, and (hopefully) the best man wins! My point is that the two posts are at opposite ends of the spectrum!

Sternchen has already answered that - they publish a detailed financial report each year.



And your point of view is fine by me; we can definitely agree to disagree

It is only this year that everything has been accounted for. Previously there was no mention of anything over the allotted apanage.

 

[Muhler]

There's no formal vote for a monarch, it is a 'birthright' they do not have to prove any form for ability to be representatives of their house, it is an automatic procedure for life, presidents have to shop for votes, and (hopefully) the best man wins! My point is that the two posts are at opposite ends of the spectrum!

A monarch only sit for as long as the population, represented by the parliament, wants it.

A president has to gather enough credit to be elected, true, but a monach has to prove himself/herself for the rest of his/her reign.

{edit}

 

[grevinnan]

I don't know what the crownprince couple wanted to convey with this photo spread but I doubt it was aimed at the Danish people. It is a photo that shows style over substance. More perfect clothes and more perfect make-up. Every european crownprincely couple are facing increasing republican pressure for the abolishment of the royal houses. Are photo spreads like these helping the royals to show their relevance?

 

[ashelen]

Wow! i went to sleep and when I wake up and check the forum it is 5 more pages to read! thiss photo created a big controversy but most of all we got all so hook up to spend the time talking about it! i think they got what they wanted!
anyone got the magazine here in the US?

 

[Kataryn]

Sorry but why does it have anything to do with creating German interest in the DRF?
Why can it not just be a simple photoshoot which the Vogue German editor has asked for?

Danish tourism is more and more aiming at the upper level of Germany's travellers. Thos who normally go to Sylt. So it's certainly good PR for Denmark.

 

[dee4855]

Amazing! How a photo shoot has come to this. I do not think I will ever understand why people really dislike this couple. What they have done to make so many think this way about them. They do try very hard to give back to others yet it seems to make no difference at all. You would think they just sit in their palace and make nothing but demands. When they do come out they do nothing but party. What is OK for one RF is not OK for the DRF.

 

[wiwaxia]

But the remaining furniture was old and unusable, wasn't it? Wouldn't that be the reason it is being carefully restored for them to use?

Antiques have to be refurbished if they are used regularly, but I can't comment on them being 'unusable' because I don't know.

Amazing! How a photo shoot has come to this. I do not think I will ever understand why people really dislike this couple. What they have done to make so many think this way about them. They do try very hard to give back to others yet it seems to make no difference at all. You would think they just sit in their palace and make nothing but demands. When they do come out they do nothing but party. What is OK for one RF is not OK for the DRF.

It is a healthy discussion about the Crown Prince Couple, with facts, and opinions about expenses, not the end of the world.

 

[dee4855]

It is a healthy discussion about the Crown Prince Couple, with facts, and opinions about expenses, not the end of the world.

Then we should do this for each RF not just the DRF. Somehow that never seems to happen. We can do page after page on this family and barely mention the others over the same issues.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

It is a photo that shows style over substance. More perfect clothes and more perfect make-up. Every european crownprincely couple are facing increasing republican pressure for the abolishment of the royal houses. Are photo spreads like these helping the royals to show their relevance?

Agree 100% and the answer is no. Photo spreads like these rather show their irrelevance, imo its a sad attempt to cover up lack of substance.

Then we should do this for each RF not just the DRF. Somehow that never seems to happen. We can do page after page on this family and barely mention the others over the same issues.

Thats because the other RFs have their own threads where similar issues are being discussed indeed, just have a look at WA and Maximas section
I dont see why other RFs should be discussed in the Danish threads.

 

[dee4855]

Thats because the other RFs have their own threads where similar issues are being discussed indeed, just have a look at WA and Maximas section
I dont see why other RFs should be discussed in the Danish threads.

I am not saying we should discuss others in this thread. I was saying you do not see this happening in the other RF threads. WA & Maxima was their own making with their new vacation home.