The Nanny Issue for Mary

[Lena]

Danish Royal Watchers
has an excellent rebuke to the writers of this trash

Maybe excellent for a sugar The thing is, that I´ve nearly forgotten the topic. It was discussed on other boards (with an anti Mary spirit) at lenghts. And that based on the exact statement from the book...and also the nannies are known...

It´s indeed nothing unusual to have nannies as Royal woman...but her comment was a stupid move, as it was very open for wrong interpretation.
Yes, one can get it as "We maybe will have nannies, but the MAIN education will be done by us, the parents", but it´s much easier to get it as "no nannies...or one every now and then, if we have duties together, and if grandpop John has no time"...esp. of tabloids, who are just searching for the headline...
This book and interviews shouldn´t have been done, it didn´t her a favour.

So I´ve said, I had nearly forgotten it, but after having read Lotte´s statement, it came into my mind again and her arguments provoked me. And even though I´m thinking, that Royals can have nannies and even though I´m tending to think, that M&F + their kids are giving an impression of a solid working family, I´m feeling provoked...provoked by statements like

their children clearly have a loving bond with their parents and who can deny that frederik is enjoying and participating in the upbringing of their little ones- in photos he looks "over the moon" in love with them and very affectionate and connected

or by Lotte´s pathetic piece. And then it´s over and out! All I can then think is, gah, what can one judge by some pictures. And I´m thinking of Frederik´s working schedule and of the many pics with the nannies, we have seen from days, when both had no duties. And it annoys me.

So I´m actually trying it with an nice approach of "in dubio pro reo", but then I get confronted with these Mary-fans (and Letizia fans), who are agreeing 100% with everything M&F (or L&F) do...then I´m feeling provoked to say something against that, get attacked and then it goes on and on.

Surely...it´s maybe more me, if I´m getting provoked and I shouldn´t expect, that all are watching their favourites as I´m watching my favourite (with loads of criticism and jokes), but maybe the one or an other "sugar" should re-think her strategy, if she wants other ppl to change their minds. As I´m knowing out of PMs etc. pp. it´s not only me, who often feels provoked.

But quite honestly I´m very often assuming, that sugars don´t wanna the others to change their minds.
It seems, as if your primary goal wouldn´t be, that M&F are surrounded by ppl, who are cheering them.
It rather seems, that you are enjoying the feeling of "being right", of being the better Royal watchers, who are supporting the better princess. The same it seems to be for the other side, who isn´t supporting Mary or Letizia (in fact it´s always about these two women)
They (I don´t wanna say "me" now as I´m changing my views quite often actually) seem to think "gah, she is a golddigger and attention seeker. Such ppl shouldn´t be supported! I´m right and the sugar party is wrong"
There is a lot of strenght growing out of a feeling of being right. How often can we have that in our jobs or in our schools?
Since we are all not close to Mary and Letizia, the one or an other party can´t be proven wrong.
And it´s a lot of entertainment. Much better than all this 3 words-gushing posts or 10 ppl in a row agreeing, that Mary has no style.

So maybe we should sit down for a moment, and should thank the other party, for being a rival and offering a racket, one can throw the ball at

If my theory is nonsense and if your strongest wish is to change the mind of the anti-Marys for Mary´s and Frederik´s sake (for the case they or journalists read here...or whatever) , I can only recommend to try it with a more neutral view on Mary and not to attack those, who are against her. Those are nice and good ppl as well. If they wanna change their mind, they are doing it, when/if the time is ready for it and not through harsh arguments. Keep the "!!!" and capital letters out of your posts.

Greetings to all wonderful women (and men ) here, who are greater than Mary and Letizia together , Lena (who wouldn´t mind having a nanny in the future and who got a bit OT...and at the same time not...as this, what I had described is the base of nearly every discussion here in the M&F sub-forum)

[Gaia]

I don't find the DRW's response a "sugar" pill. The media is ridiculous these days and it doesn't matter if it is Mary or the other(s), there appears to be a salivating dog attempt to take a piece out of these women weekly with some type of trumped up flaw. Calling the offender out on a blog is an excellent way to give a heads up to the followers of a CP not to waste their money.

Since so many of these tab writers are using the internet to get their biased material they might as well have it graded for accuracy. Blogs have been making inroads with media problems in the political world, why not for royals?

[bbb]

"i'm not trying to change anyones minds, SUGAH" i mean that in the nicest possible way, here in the south we call everyone sugar, so if it was meant as a put down to me (as my quote was used) i have to say you missed the mark, i'm not taking the bait- i don't care what or why you think of mary and am not wasting my time trying to change anyone's mind. i happen to enjoy and respect ALL the CP couple and try to stay above the fray of the "mine is better nonsense"


imo she never said she wouldn't use nannies, imo she said the children won't be raised by nannies. imo there is a big difference, imo they are loving, affectionate parents, it's my opinion and on this board i'm entitled to mine as you are to yours.

you will never find me being disrespectful to any of the royals (ironic, not always positive, questioning maybe) or members intentionally, most of the time i try to take into consideration language and culture differences and i try not to get provoked toward anyone i don't know personally.
you don't like mary i get it, move on it doesn't effect my life in the least, if you meant your post as an attack, nice try- if you were trying to prove a point, i'm sorry it flew right over my head.

the question was asked, i gave my opinion, i'm not sure why you've brought in letizia, if you read my posts you'll find i'm a "fan" of hers too. i'm not sure what the point of your post is- it didn't answer or add to aurora post so i'm ignoring it as off topic and moving on.

[MissSaga]

How can they not have nannies? They are Crown Prince and Princess of Denmark. Actually, the're simply working parents. Nannies is a must for them - and there not doing anything wrong, they are, as we know, actually upper class.

She just said the kids would not be raised by nannies. She never said that they wouldn't hire any.

[laramie]

I wonder how many children are in day care full time while mothers and dads work - do we point our fingers at them? The Crown Prince couple are fortunate that they can have care for their children at home rather than in day care. But in the question of child care they really are no different than any of the millions(I doubt that I am exaggerating) of couples that share this problem. In the US I believe that what we call a full time baby sitter is often what in other parts of the world is called a nanny. My own children,who are professionals, have all had their children in day care for at least 8 hours a day until they were school age and no one ever accused them of not "raising" their children. This is just a fact of life in this modern world.

[biboquinhas]

I think that they don't abuse of nannys. We can see them very often playing with Christian on the Park or on the beach, we can see clearly that they are present parents so to have nannys is a normal and useful thing for them! They need to have nannys because they don't have a 9:00 to 17:00 work like many other parents!! I don't think that is bad thing having in mind that they don't abuse of that facility

[acdc1]

I think it's ok that they use a nanny, since they are so busy. And it's not as if the nannies are basically raising the children, Fred and Mary are doing that, you can plainly tell. I actually think that they probably wanted to take Christian to NYC, but it would be easier for them and for him to just stay at home with a nanny and his grandparents.

[Aurora810]

Just as Lena said it was not a smart comment on Mary's part to make! And it left plenty of room for interpretation for sensational reporter types. I still feel a bit sorry for Mary in this regard as it seems this comment has haunted her for awhile now. I have to think if Mary could have one comment back since becoming the wife of the Crown Prince of Denmark it would be this one about the issue of nannies. Well, we all make mistakes even though this isn't really a mistake persay it just wasn't a well summed up thought. Also I think she was a somewhat new princess at the time of the comment. Today, she likely would not give a similar open for interpretation comment.

[biboquinhas]

Originally Posted by acdc1

I think it's ok that they use a nanny, since they are so busy. And it's not as if the nannies are basically raising the children, Fred and Mary are doing that, you can plainly tell. I actually think that they probably wanted to take Christian to NYC, but it would be easier for them and for him to just stay at home with a nanny and his grandparents.

And they didn't have any free time so they could't go with to nice places that children like!

[Myriam]

what's the problem with nannies? they are very useful sometimes; mary said her children would never be educated by nannies. she never said they wouldnt have nannies.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Aurora810

That is my own thoughts. So what do others think?

Whatever a "nanny" is.. . There are even "Daddies" who do the "nanny" if mummy's busy with her job or enjoying some rare spare time of her own.

Even my middle class self had someone ( a nanny?) to take care of my son when I went back to working and my mother had become too ill to care for him alone.

I think it's the most normal thing to have help with the kids. For hours, even days. Be it the grandparents (normally only too happy to "help out" when it comes to their beloved grandchildren) or hired help (Au Pairs have the chance to encounter other countries in a secure surrounding because of that need!). In former times (The "Golden Ages" LOL) you didn't need them because any other member of the "enlarged family" you lived in (Grannies, aunties etc.) raised the kid while you were their young working slave...

Even that's something completely different from "having nannies raise a child". That borders on growing up in the Royal orphanage - getting trained to slave in the "Royal Workhouse" as future monarch....

From the pictures we could see I am convinced Mary is just another of those mums who use help when they need it. But who are the mums. IMHO, of course.

[Marengo]

I think the remark has been blown out of proportions because some thought it was a snub to her mother-in-law and a nasty remark about the way the Queen raised her sons.

I don´t think the above was anywhere near what Mary meant, but that is how it was explained by some. As others said, an unfortunate remark which could be interpreted even more unfortunate by those who want to see fault. Resulting from that it is blown out of proportions that she has a nanny herself right now.

[msleiman]

I don't understand how people can not understand the difference between raising children and looking after children! This seems very clear to me, I see a big difference between the two.

[MargreteI]

Originally Posted by Marengo

I think the remark has been blown out of proportions because some thought it was a snub to her mother-in-law and a nasty remark about the way the Queen raised her sons.

I don´t think the above was anywhere near what Mary meant, but that is how it was explained by some. As others said, an unfortunate remark which could be interpreted even more unfortunate by those who want to see fault. Resulting from that it is blown out of proportions that she has a nanny herself right now.

I am quite sure that Mary is referring to how Queen Margrethe raised her son. No doubt about that.

.... BUT the queen herself have admitted that she was not a good mother when the two princes were very small and that things should have been different in their early years.

... so you can not call it a snipe, but rather it is in agrement with the Queen.

The reason why it has never been a big deal how she raised her sons when they were infants and todlers is due to her selfg being open hearted about her shortcommings.

.

[ysbel]

First thing, lets set the record straight: Sarah Le Marquand of the Daily Telegraph did not criticize Mary for hiring nannies.

She said, "This is not to suggest for one second that Mary and Frederik should be admonished for hiring a nanny. Like any modern couple, they're understandably eager to access the best childcare they can afford.

It's just a shame Mary felt the need to make such sweeping statements before she even gave birth. Until you've actually become a parent - and I say this as someone without children - it's best to refrain from judging both those with nannies and those without. It will only come back to haunt you later."

I find some truth to this opinion, it was an unwise statement to make. However, I wonder why LeMarquand feels it necessary to bring up now. As Lena said, people have forgotten about this by now.

But the Danish Royal Watchers is practicing some questionable journalism itself with headlines such as: Breaking news! Tabloid journalist prefers Mary's babies to be home alone!"

For accusing Le Marquand of misquoting Mary, the Danish Royal Watchers then proceeds to misquote Le Marquand and in a worse way because whereas Mary's words were somewhat ambiguous "I know I'm going to have a lot of help but no way is my child going to be raised by nannies" Le Marquand's words were very straightforward and not open to different interpretations. She plainly said that she did not admonish Mary for hiring nannies, yet the Danish Royal Watchers headline clearly states the opposite.

Perhaps before chastising the Daily Telegraph for shoddy journalism, perhaps the Danish Royal Watchers should look to its own journalistic standards.

[Aurora810]

Yeah, I as well thought the breaking news headline was a little much when I was reading it. But who are the Danish Royal watchers, anyway? I mean, can they even be called journalists? I'm just asking, I don't know. Who exactly runs the site? I see the two names in the corner but I guess I don't think of them necessarily as journalists, but possibly playing journalists from time to time.

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by Aurora810

Yeah, I as well thought the breaking news headline was a little much when I was reading it. But who are the Danish Royal watchers, anyway? I mean, can they even be called journalists?

You have a very good point aurora. The Danish Royal Watchers seems to be a blog which means that its not published by a regular media service. But blogs get quoted more and more as reliable news sources these days which may mean its probably a good idea to check out a blog's standards for integrity and accurate reporting before trusting what they write.

I simply find it ironic that they use a misleading headline about a reporter's statement when the subject of the article is their complaint of how this same reporter is misinterpreting Mary's statement.

Its rather like the pot calling the kettle black.