Frederik, Mary and the Media: A Discussion of Sorts


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think CP Mary didn't have the holliday of her life!!! She has lots of negative points: the nude thing, the miss photocal, the fur jacket, the Prada boots:D her rudess with press:cool: Those are not good things for her popularity...
 
I think CP Mary didn't have the holliday of her life!!! She has lots of negative points: the nude thing, the miss photocal, the fur jacket, the Prada boots:D her rudess with press:cool: Those are not good things for her popularity...

I agree. Form a PR point of view, this trip has been a disaster. Christian's nude pictures, Frederik's Playboy-party, Isabella's minkvest and now Nappy-gate. Maybe they should get a refund from Ms Fudala?:flowers:

Billed Bladets editor, Ms Krakau, has just posted this comment - in Danish - on the mags website. It explains what happened that day at the zoo. Funnily enough, it does not mention Nina Fudalas efforts in getting the Aussie press lined up and excluding Billed Bladet! Billed-Bladet - Annemette Krakau: Sandheden om Marys ”skideballe”

It does, however, say that when CP Mary realised that Billed Bladet, the most loyal and royal outlet CP Mary will ever have, had been scooped, she made her own pictures from the outing available to the Danish press. Damanage control, anyone?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
From a PR point of view, this trip has been a disaster.
A disaster in your own mind maybe, but certainly not here on the ground in Australia. The media coverage has been nothing but favourable, as we saw again tonight on our television news with Mary's visit to the new Medical Institute in Sydney.
 
I agree. It is not popular to say it out loud, BUT, IMO ,the monarchies are in many ways far better off if the royals marry royals. It is an issue I am dealing with in my next book.:flowers:

I find it interesting that you should say that. Because IMHO the fact that more and more Royals marry commoners has a stabilizing effect on the monarchies. I don't think the people as the true souverain will condone it when the Royals seperate themselves from the other citizens of their countries. There were good reasons why Royals married other Royals in the past - first the belief in the God given privilege of being Royal which is the idea of belonging to the same seperate caste, then political reasons through the forming of alliances of relatives - all that doesn't count anymore nowadays. So it's mostly traditional reasons and the idea of the Royals as symbols of their country. But marrying other Royals would mean that they have to import foreigners which are considered to be "better" than their own people, who in fact are the political souverains of the country - I don't think that in a modern democratic country this goes down well with the people. So when frederick married so obviously for love and his new wife took on life in Denmark with such applomb, they both did more for the monarchy than Frederick could have done on introducing a princess from somewhere to his fellow countrymen as his bride.
 
I find it interesting that you should say that. Because IMHO the fact that more and more Royals marry commoners has a stabilizing effect on the monarchies. I don't think the people as the true souverain will condone it when the Royals seperate themselves from the other citizens of their countries. There were good reasons why Royals married other Royals in the past - first the belief in the God given privilege of being Royal which is the idea of belonging to the same seperate caste, then political reasons through the forming of alliances of relatives - all that doesn't count anymore nowadays. So it's mostly traditional reasons and the idea of the Royals as symbols of their country. But marrying other Royals would mean that they have to import foreigners which are considered to be "better" than their own people, who in fact are the political souverains of the country - I don't think that in a modern democratic country this goes down well with the people. So when frederick married so obviously for love and his new wife took on life in Denmark with such applomb, they both did more for the monarchy than Frederick could have done on introducing a princess from somewhere to his fellow countrymen as his bride.

A royal marriage is first and foremost a dynastic feature. It is about ensuring the succession to the throne. In the old times, it was also about land and power alliances, but these days the royals "marry for love" or do they? CP Frederik always said that he "never wanted to end up like Charles and Diana," and so he tried to follow his heart by proposing to a Danish girl. The Queen would not give her consent, so Katja Storkholm, Frederik's first big love, never became crown princess. Look at Sweden's Victoria. She has been with her Daniel for four years now. It looks to me like she is having a hard time being allowed to follow her heart - even though Victoria's mum, Queen Silvia, was a commoner herself. Silvia turned out to be a blessing for the Swedish monarchy (trained, I may add, by the ultimate royal, Queen Ingrid,) but maybe there is a case to be made for refreshing the royal DNA-pool and at the same time making sure, that the young women, who marry princes, know exactly what kind of life, they are marrying into. Who knows that better than a born and bred princess?
 
Who shall also happen to be a distant relative somewhere along the way..and not so distant that most will think of it favourably, either..

It just wouldn't be deemed, by a large majority of society, as appropriate or right. The fact they would be related at all. Even King Geroge VI and the Queen Elizabeth, had at first, reservations about Elizabeth and Philip because they were related and that was the late 1940's! Social progress has since been made.

Marrying a foreign Prince/ss is not the answer, not that I happen to think an answer is needed.
 
I wasn't so much thinking of Royal-Royal marriages but rather of other couples like W-A and Maxima. Her family, I believe, is rather wealthy and can afford large estates in Argentina so its easier for her to go to Argentina and hide and still have quality time with her loved ones.

A Scottish comedian once said that mega press attention was only fun if you had the money to be able to shelter yourself from it. Mary and Fred have enough, of course, but I daresay the rest of her family does not and they don't live in houses that afford much shielding from the press. Mary and Fred have a security contingent of course but there's only so much it can do if its parked in a regular middle class house in a middle class neighborhood that hasn't seen anything like it.
 
It would have been a lot easier if F and M had hired a house with more privacy and had invited Mary's family over. Then all of this would not have happened.
 
It would have been a lot easier if F and M had hired a house with more privacy and had invited Mary's family over. Then all of this would not have happened.

Have they done this in the past? I remember last Australian holiday they took they were photographed a few times and then they fell of the radar.
 
It would have been a lot easier if F and M had hired a house with more privacy and had invited Mary's family over. Then all of this would not have happened.

Maybe not such a bad idea you know. Some estate in the Tasmanian wilderness somewhere...perhaps close enough to the main centres but still well guarded from public access/intrusion. Take the pressure of the family too, even though I'm sure they understand.
 
. . . . Form a PR point of view, this trip has been a disaster. :flowers:
I beg to differ. Not from Downunder it hasn't. The news has all been positive entertaining and relatively light-hearted. I haven't seen one really adverse comment about the trip.

It seems to me that there is an overwhelming black cloud of discontent being stirred up around the European royals in general and the Danish CP couple in particular.

All this sage advice about PR paints CP Frederik as a clown and a fool and CP Mary as a brunette Barbie-doll, each without an orginal thought or idea of their own and totally incapable of making any decisions for themselves. A neither accurate nor kind picture at all.

. . . . . . . when CP Mary realised that Billed Bladet, the most loyal and royal outlet CP Mary will ever have, had been scooped, she made her own pictures from the outing available to the Danish press. Damanage control, anyone?
Whilst I don't agree with every little thing that the DRF do or say, I am astounded at the constant negative sniping.

This has been a holiday with Mary's family not a state visit. However, due to the intrusive and invasive media and commentators, I fear this will be the last such holiday they will ever have. From now on out it is going to be distance and security, all the things that keep them safe with some semblance of a normal family life.

Next time round they'll probable hire a private island or mega-expensive lodge and fly in by helicopter, thus ensuring both security and privacy.
 
I agree. Form a PR point of view, this trip has been a disaster. Christian's nude pictures, Frederik's Playboy-party, Isabella's minkvest and now Nappy-gate. Maybe they should get a refund from Ms Fudala?:flowers:

A reality check from someone actually in Australia subjected to the media reports here.
Weekly glossy women's magazines--- last week, secondary front page story, nice positive stories and pictures of Mary and children 'home'
---- this week, only front page on one magazine, but again nice positive stories, pictures of Mary etc in Hobart.

Daily newspapers--first week in Hobart, featured daily, whatever place they were photographed in, nude pictures, playboy party, mink vest etc all mentioned in the Tasmanian newspaper The Mercury, not a huge readership as Tasmania is not a densely populated state. The Mercury is a News Ltd newspaper, minkvest got a run in the Sydney News Ltd paper, other papers ignored the story. Non News Ltd papers didn't bother reporting any of them. News Ltd is Rupert Murdoch, editorial policy seems to be print whatever negative story you can spin about royals. British royals too, as he owns many of the British tabloids.

TV news footage, all glowingly positive, no negative stories at all, no playboy, no mink vest, nothing. Official events got major positive coverage, including today's Victor Chang opening when the reporter breathlessly told us about a woman who arrived outside the building at 7.30 to get a prime position. Not only that but she had come down from Newcastle! ( about an hour north of Sydney)

It was hardly a PR disaster! ( The media liason officer Nina Fadula isn't exactly 'notorious', while we do have some 'notorious' publicists, she's not one of them, infact no-one had ever heard of her! She's very lowkey.)
The media coverage was unfailingly positive, a few negative stories in The Mercury barely registered as few people read it!
 
Silvia turned out to be a blessing for the Swedish monarchy (trained, I may add, by the ultimate royal, Queen Ingrid,) but maybe there is a case to be made for refreshing the royal DNA-pool and at the same time making sure, that the young women, who marry princes, know exactly what kind of life, they are marrying into. Who knows that better than a born and bred princess?

Find one like these. If you look at princesses Beatrice and Eugenie's behaviour, I doubt anyone believes that they would make better Crown princesses than Mary or Maxima. The times are long gone IMHO when princesses were more than just born Royals - they are not longer bred to live like one. As for Victoria, my personal impression is that Daniel does not want to marry her yet.
 
Just a quick question about the mink.. Are we 100% certain that it is real fur? Or is that just an assumption on someones part?
 
well I have made that question to myself also. But I think Mary didn't use any fur imitation, I'am pretty sure it is real fur...
 
A disaster in your own mind maybe, but certainly not here on the ground in Australia. The media coverage has been nothing but favourable, as we saw again tonight on our television news with Mary's visit to the new Medical Institute in Sydney.

I disagree. IMO it has been one thing after anohter - and now Nappy Gate. The Danish Foreign service has been asked by the palace to look into the matter of how CP Mary's highly staged nappy-run ended up as a commercial for disposable nappies. Not the DRFs finest hour, unfortunately!
 
I'm sorry, but I must have missed the link to the article about the Danish Foreign service being involved in "nappy-gate". Would you be so kind as to point me in the right direction?

The truth about the BB incident in a australian zoo:

Chief editor of BB Annemette Krakau says: The BB was wayting outside the zoo and asked Mary and Frederik whether they could take some pictures inside the zoo of the royal family. Mary answered very politely that they would really love som alone-time with their children. She said this in danish because it was only BB who asked. The australian and other medias were already inside the zoo taking pictures. They did not ask for permission and therefore she said nothing in english. Eventually they allowed the australian media to take pictures, hoping that they would get some peace afterwards. The BB respected her request and left the place. Annemette Krakau said the crownprincess was polite and professionel as ever and that the relationship between her and BB is indeed very good.

Not surprising this story was blown all out of proportion. For those of you who read danish, the story can be read a TV2's homepage.

It seems very much like the whole thing was blown completely out of proportion.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree. Form a PR point of view, this trip has been a disaster. Christian's nude pictures, Frederik's Playboy-party, Isabella's minkvest and now Nappy-gate. Maybe they should get a refund from Ms Fudala?:flowers:
As others have pointed out this trip has not been a disaster at all as far as positive pr is concerned although journalists of a certain kind would like to present it as one (just as they mix up nude pictures which were taken in DK and exaggerated reports about a party in Beijing with things that happened in Australia - but why should they bother about accurateness :D).
I think it was a disaster as far as privacy was concerned. This trip showed that the DRF has to become more strict with the media.
Maybe they should get a refund from Ms Fudala?:flowers:

Billed Bladets editor, Ms Krakau, has just posted this comment - in Danish - on the mags website. It explains what happened that day at the zoo. Funnily enough, it does not mention Nina Fudalas efforts in getting the Aussie press lined up and excluding Billed Bladet! Billed-Bladet - Annemette Krakau: Sandheden om Marys ”skideballe”
Perhaps it doesn't mention it because it's not true?
Perhaps it's just a made up story of journalists of a certain kind?
AFAIK Nina Fudala was hired for the 4 official events, everything else is pure speculation of certain parts of the media, although presented here as if it was fact.
It does, however, say that when CP Mary realised that Billed Bladet, the most loyal and royal outlet CP Mary will ever have, had been scooped, she made her own pictures from the outing available to the Danish press. Damanage control, anyone?
How annoying! All those S&H/EB stories about Mary scooping the Danish media going down the hill. :D
And with unethical magazines/papers like Se&Hoer and Ekstrabladet out there I would say they sure need a damage control.
 
I disagree. IMO it has been one thing after anohter - and now Nappy Gate. The Danish Foreign service has been asked by the palace to look into the matter of how CP Mary's highly staged nappy-run ended up as a commercial for disposable nappies. Not the DRFs finest hour, unfortunately!

If a picture of the wife of our Bundespräsident (the German head of State) had been used for commercial purposes in the same way as Mary's, I bet our foreign ministry would be asked as well to check into the media law of the country of publication and figure how to stop that advertisment and which possibilities of a law suit are available against the company. so where's the "gate" in this pseudo-affair?
 
As for the zoo incident. I happen to know some of what went on. As some of you might know, CP Mary has hired a PR named Nina Fudala to handle press during the so called "private family holiday."Ms Fudala told Aussie press that there would be an photo op at the zoo. When Billed Bladet's people realised they were being excluded, they rushed to the zoo and asked for the same oportunity to take a few shots as the Aussies had just had. This request was denied in Danish by CP Mary. Billed Bladet ten left the zoo without any further ado. The question is,IMO, why on earth CP Mary hires a person to handle press during her family holiday. According to the palace it is to coordinate the press for the CP's "official duties," as spokesperson Lene Balleby wrote in a mail to me. When did nappy-shopping become an "official duty?" This whole Nina Fudala spectacle has backfired. Now our crown princess is being used as a cheap postergirl for Huggies - because Ms Fudala staged a nappy-run photo op? Again, it is SO undignified.
Sorry, but the BB article posted and translated by MDS contradicts your story.
And Lene Balleby IMO is more reliable than Trine Villemann (or Se&Hoer :D).
 
I agree with Ricarda. As I said before there is a fine line in which you work with the media and use the media to your advantage just to get your picture in the news. I think the royal couple crossed this line on this trip. It sounds like they enlisted some help during the trip which in hindsight turned out to be not very helpful, in fact almost backfiring on them.

I hope when they get back home, they sit down with their court advisors, look at the coverage and determine how things can go better next time.
 
Billed Bladets editor, Ms Krakau, has just posted this comment - in Danish - on the mags website. It explains what happened that day at the zoo. Funnily enough, it does not mention Nina Fudalas efforts in getting the Aussie press lined up and excluding Billed Bladet!

Most likely because this is not the case. We have only got your word for Nina Fudalas role in the incident. That makes the validity and therfore also the reliability of your statment strongly questionable.

Billed-Bladet - Annemette Krakau: Sandheden om Marys ”skideballe”

It does, however, say that when CP Mary realised that Billed Bladet, the most loyal and royal outlet CP Mary will ever have, had been scooped, she made her own pictures from the outing available to the Danish press. Damanage control, anyone?

If you quote an article - then please take care to either quote correctly or to translate correctly.

This is what is actually written in the articel - directly qouted:

"Sandheden er nemlig, at Mary er både professionel og samarbejdsvillig, og at tonen mellem hende og os er rigtig god. Da kronprinsparret og deres børn skulle besøge dyreparken tog BILLED-BLADETs journalist og fotograf opstilling uden for porten. Da Mary kom forbi, spurgte vi, om vi måtte tage nogle billeder inde i parken. Og Mary svarede stille og roligt, at hun så inderligt ønskede et privat øjeblik med sin australske familie, og det bad hun os så mindeligt om at respektere. Hvilket vi gjorde. Beskeden blev kun givet på dansk, fordi vi var de eneste, der spurgte om lov. Den udenlandske presse var allerede inde i parken og fotograferede løs. For at få ro på situationen gik kronprinsparret så – hårdt presset – med til at stille op til billeder."

and translated into english:

"The truth is that Mary is both professional and cooperative, and that the tone between her and us (Billed Bladet) is very good. Since the CP couple and their children should visit the wildlifepark, the journalist and photographer from Billed Bladet placed ourselves outside the gate. When Mary came over, we asked whether we could take some pictures inside the park. And Mary replied calmly that she so earnestly desired a private moment with her Australian family, and she asked us mindeligt to respect this. Which we did. The message was given only in Danish, because we were the only ones who asked about the permision. The foreign press (the australian) were already inside the park and busy photographing. In order to have calm down the situation the CP Couple went - pressed into this - (inside the park) to pose for some photos to be taken."
 
Most likely because this is not the case. We have only got your word for Nina Fudalas role in the incident. That makes the validity and therfore also the reliability of your statment strongly questionable.



If you quote an article - then please take care to either quote correctly or to translate correctly.

This is what is actually written in the articel - directly qouted:

"Sandheden er nemlig, at Mary er både professionel og samarbejdsvillig, og at tonen mellem hende og os er rigtig god. Da kronprinsparret og deres børn skulle besøge dyreparken tog BILLED-BLADETs journalist og fotograf opstilling uden for porten. Da Mary kom forbi, spurgte vi, om vi måtte tage nogle billeder inde i parken. Og Mary svarede stille og roligt, at hun så inderligt ønskede et privat øjeblik med sin australske familie, og det bad hun os så mindeligt om at respektere. Hvilket vi gjorde. Beskeden blev kun givet på dansk, fordi vi var de eneste, der spurgte om lov. Den udenlandske presse var allerede inde i parken og fotograferede løs. For at få ro på situationen gik kronprinsparret så – hårdt presset – med til at stille op til billeder."

and translated to english:

"The truth is that Mary is both professional and cooperative, and that the tone between her and us (Billed Bladet) is very good. Since the CP couple and their children should visit the wildlifepark, the journalist and photographer from Billed Bladet placed ourselves outside the gate. When Mary came over, we asked whether we could take some pictures inside the park. And Mary replied calmly that she so earnestly desired a private moment with her Australian family, and she asked us mindeligt to respect this. Which we did. The message was given only in English, because we were the only ones who asked about the permision. The foreign press (the australian) were already inside the park and busy photographing. In order to have calm down the situation the CP Couple went - pressed into this - (inside the park) to pose for some photos to be taken."

Well, look here then: http://www.news.com.au/mercury/story/0,22884,24198549-5007221,00.html
At the end of this story it clearly states that Ms Fudala hinted that "the princess would be around Tuesday afternoon," which is when the staged nappy-run took place. Sorry to shatter anyone's illusions, but Ms Fudala has been a disaster for CP Mary's private holiday. Now the Danish Foreign Service has to sort out the business of the cheap nappy commercial featuring CP Mary.

I agree with Ricarda. As I said before there is a fine line in which you work with the media and use the media to your advantage just to get your picture in the news. I think the royal couple crossed this line on this trip. It sounds like they enlisted some help during the trip which in hindsight turned out to be not very helpful, in fact almost backfiring on them.

I hope when they get back home, they sit down with their court advisors, look at the coverage and determine how things can go better next time.

EXACTLY! Hopefully everybody will learn from this dreadful experience.

If a picture of the wife of our Bundespräsident (the German head of State) had been used for commercial purposes in the same way as Mary's, I bet our foreign ministry would be asked as well to check into the media law of the country of publication and figure how to stop that advertisment and which possibilities of a law suit are available against the company. so where's the "gate" in this pseudo-affair?

The Danish Embassy in Canberra has now been asked by the palace to sort out the business of this Huggies commercial. Thats the "gate" for you. Danish authorities having to iron out this undignified royal mess,brought on by an overzealous spindoctor, paid for by Danish taxmoney, that's even more "gate" for you! Nanny Gate it is!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
As I said before there is a fine line in which you work with the media and use the media to your advantage just to get your picture in the news. I think the royal couple crossed this line on this trip. It sounds like they enlisted some help during the trip which in hindsight turned out to be not very helpful, in fact almost backfiring on them.

I hope when they get back home, they sit down with their court advisors, look at the coverage and determine how things can go better next time.
I don't think Mary has to work with the media to get her picture in the news. She is who she is and there will always (or at least for the next years) be a media interest in her, in DK and obviously also in Australia. The media wants stories and Mary has to cooperate with them because she is who she is.
Just remember how annoyed the Danish media was when the cp couple was too reserved towards the media during the first 6 months after Christian's birth and which stories they made up as a consequence. And of course they want a good press - who wouldn't.

I don't know why but to me it seems there was more interest in the private part of her trip than last time
(nevertheless, according to Mary's sister, they considered the media attention during the first private trip as a disaster). And it might well be they were unprepared for the overwhelming attention this time and asked for help (pure speculation though). But there will always be a certain press who will turn an attempt to back off the media into a "royal pr stunt" (especially after being exposed as "nude children pictures publisher" :D).

Btw, I think the last days showed that the couple is able to "hide" from the media when in Australia, but they will never be able to hide in Tasmania. So, perhaps they will take consequences out of that.
 
Again, can someone please provide a link to the information saying that the Danish Foreign service is getting involved.

More to the point, if a nappy company has decided to illegally use her image for the purpose of furthering their marketing campaigns, then I don't think that she can be blamed for that. Thinking that is seriously out of proportion. And the company should be sued, as I am sure she did not sign a commercial waiver giving that comapny rights to use her image to endorse their product. Bad judgement on their part, not on the CP couple. Are they meant to let their children run around without nappies?
 
Last edited:
Well, look here then: http://www.news.com.au/mercury/story/0,22884,24198549-5007221,00.html
At the end of this story it clearly states that Ms Fudala hinted that "the princess would be around Tuesday afternoon," which is when the staged nappy-run took place. Sorry to shatter anyone's illusions, but Ms Fudala has been a disaster for CP Mary's private holiday. Now the Danish Foreign Service has to sort out the business of the cheap nappy commercial featuring CP Mary.

I have no doubts - and I never have had - that Nina Fudala was hired to coordinate some kind of comunication with the media which the above mentioned link to the article in "Mercury - The Voice of Tasmania" also confirmes. Futhermore I find this action by the CP Couple to be very sensible.

What I question is the role you have described Nina Fudala to have had - especially with the incident in the wildlifepark. The reason for my doubts is the information given in the article from Billed Bladet.

Now the Danish Foreign Service has to sort out the business of the cheap nappy commercial featuring CP Mary.

Can you please provide reliable sources for that statement?

The Danish Embassy in Canberra has now been asked by the palace to sort out the business of this Huggies commercial. Thats the "gate" for you. Danish authorities having to iron out this undignified royal mess,brought on by an overzealous spindoctor, paid for by Danish taxmoney, that's even more "gate" for you! Nanny Gate it is!

and can you please provide reliable sources for that statement as well?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, look here then: http://www.news.com.au/mercury/story/0,22884,24198549-5007221,00.html
At the end of this story it clearly states that Ms Fudala hinted that "the princess would be around Tuesday afternoon," which is when the staged nappy-run took place. Sorry to shatter anyone's illusions, but Ms Fudala has been a disaster for CP Mary's private holiday. Now the Danish Foreign Service has to sort out the business of the cheap nappy commercial featuring CP Mary.
Actually it does not clearly state that it was Ms. Fudala who hinted. Might be, might not be.
"Although Danish royal media co-ordinator and former Tasmanian journalist Nina Fudala said no public events were planned, there was a hint that the princess "might be around on Tuesday afternoon"."

The Danish Embassy in Canberra has now been asked by the palace to sort out the business of this Huggies commercial. Thats the "gate" for you. Danish authorities having to iron out this undignified royal mess,brought on by an overzealous spindoctor, paid for by Danish taxmoney, that's even more "gate" for you! Nanny Gate it is!
First, as Empress pointed out it's not the royals or Ms. Fudala's fault if the pictures were misused.
Second, where is your proof that Ms. Fudala was hired for the private part of their visit, much less has brought on this "undignified royal mess"?
Third, where is your proof that she is paid by the Danish taxpayers and not - at least partly - by The Alannah and Madeline Foundation and The Victor Chang Institute which were promoting their causes with the help of Mary?

I wasn't so much thinking of Royal-Royal marriages but rather of other couples like W-A and Maxima. Her family, I believe, is rather wealthy and can afford large estates in Argentina so its easier for her to go to Argentina and hide and still have quality time with her loved ones.
That might be one reason.
But quite frankly - and I hope I am not offending any Maxima fan - the interest of the Argentinian media in Maxima was never as big as the interest of the Australian media in Mary, it increased with the children though. (And Maxima complained about the Argentinian media frightening the children.)

In NL on the other hand they have a media code and IISIC not quite as many mags as in DK (though a larger population). I always thought there are a lot of mags published in DK, for such a small country with such a small population and such a limited amount of celebs. And therefore their main focus seems to be the royal family. (I am from a small country too, with a larger population, and we certainly don't have as many gossip mags - and no royals too.)
And try to get Se&Hoer or Ekstrabladet sign a media code. No chance, if you ask me!:D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well I dont care what the papers write but can Frederik and MAry really look back at this vacation and be happy about how it turned out? Photos almost daily, stupid stories about stupid things like vests, nappys and Prada boots? And then topping it all of by giving private photos to trashy magazines?
HER&NU :: HOT NEWS

they need to evaluate how they deal with the press ASAP in my very personal oppinion. Or is this how they want Christian and Isabella to experience their mothers home country in the years to come?
 
The Danish Embassy in Canberra has now been asked by the palace to sort out the business of this Huggies commercial. Thats the "gate" for you. Danish authorities having to iron out this undignified royal mess,brought on by an overzealous spindoctor, paid for by Danish taxmoney, that's even more "gate" for you! Nanny Gate it is!

That's what Embassies are for: to sort out business that happened in foreign countries. And only after the facts have been established, judgment should be allowed, IMHO. So far, they were asked to establish the facts. Business as usual.

Villemann, I think we need to base this discussion on facts and so far, quite some of the facts you stated have been put into a different light by other posters from your country. So my impression is that your messages contain your own strange interpretation of events while written with the voice of authority and I believe we don't need this kind of propaganda here.

I accept that you interpret events differently but you should not do that in your role as an established writer because what you write here gets so many contradictions here that it only serves to destroy your reputation.

At least it did for me.
 
Last edited:
That's what Embassies are for: to sort out business that happened in foreign countries. And only after the facts have been established, judgment should be allowed, IMHO. So far, they were asked to establish the facts. Business as usual.

Villemann, I think we need to base this discussion on facts and so far, quite some of the facts you stated have been put into a different light by other posters from your country. So my impression is that your messages contain your own strange interpretation of events while written with the voice of authority and I believe we don't need this kind of propaganda here.

I accept that you interpret events differently but you should not do that in your role as an established writer because what you write here gets so many contradictions here that it only serves to destroy your reputation.

At least it did for me.

I concur, Jo of Palatine, to every single word you have written in this post.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom