Princess Mary's Personality

[Madame Royale]

Mary's hardly a follower herslef, given there is no one style she wears and neither is she a trend setter, imop!

I do agree with ysbel that maintaining an interest in fashion does not allude to the possibility of shallownes. It's only what people wish to make of that interest and the person, then manipulating it to a "reality" they see fit.

 

[Madame Royale]

Well you know Madame Royale, you in Australia and I in the US probably don't see all her public appearances when she speaks Danish because we live in English speaking countries so I take that back it is hard for us to judge.

But how would the journos know about the tongue Mary speaks when they're not around and why would they complain about it? They're not around.

Of course, we are not so privy as are the Danes and I'm assuming neither of us feel we are

It's the fact (as I see it) that journo's don't know what tongue Mary uses when they aren't around which encourages them to question how much Danish she actually confers upon her day to day life. They want to be intrusive, they want to know everything and because they don't...

 

[ysbel]

Diana's changes were much more gradual in her 16, 17 years as a princess.

As for Deneuve and Hepburn, I wouldn't call them "denizens of the fashion scene", especially Audrey. Audrey Hepburn was a trend setter. She's not a follower of fashion. She wore what she liked. Fashion designers and the masses followed her. Plus, there are different expectations for an actress and a princess. Being shallow is expected for an actress, but not for a princess.

Diana's changes were pretty significant in her first year: she went from being on Blackwell's worst dressed list to the most stylish woman in the world in about the same time as Mary has been a princess. Diana's clothing choices her first year as a princess were horrendous and they got immediately better after William was born only one year later and definitely before Harry's birth. You can see the difference in the clothing she wore when she came out of the hospital with William compared to the clothes she wore when she came out of the hospital with Harry only two years later. What a transformation in such a short time and I still don't believe its fake any more than I believe Mary is fake.

I think you and I have a different opinion on denizens of fashion. Audrey definitely followed fashion and fashion shows were her passion long after she grew older and didn't feel comfortable wearing the latest styles. Her clothes were trendsetting but that may have been more due to the influence of her designer Hubert de Givenchy who saw Hepburn as the perfect canvas for his designs. Its debatable whether the real creative fashion mind belonged to Audrey or whether it belonged to de Givenchy. It doesn't change my opinion of La Grande Hepburn at all but I believe in giving credit where credit is due and credit for Audrey's trendsetting I think does not fairly rest on her shoulders alone.

But my point is that Audrey with her acting, her work for UNICEF is much more than the sum of what clothes she wore even though she cared deeply about fashion and the clothes she wore.

Still I refuse to call Audrey Hepburn shallow even though she was a lowly actress and interested in fashion. So if I dare not call Audrey shallow, how can I call Mary shallow? It defies reason.

 

[highpriestess]

Thanks a lot Harmony
So a lot of her patronages were announced concurrently in January 2005 - and her patronage for CIFF and Designers Nest did not come first - as some seem to think.

Announcing a list of patronages has as much value as the paper it prints on. IIRC, most of the patronages Mary was assigned to early on was inherited from her in-laws. She didn't do much for those patronages especially early on.

But she started being seen at fashion shows before her marriage, posting for fashion magazines and being hyped as a "fashion icon" about the time of her first trip to Australia. She was "associated" with fashion long before she established her identity in any other associations.

 

[ysbel]

Of course, we are not so privy as are the Danes and I'm assuming neither of us feel we are

It's the fact (as I see it) that journo's don't know what tongue Mary uses when they aren't around which encourages them to question how much Danish she actually confers upon her day to day life. They want to be intrusive, they want to know everything and because they don't...

Well complaining about that would be rather silly I agree Madame Royale but I thought they were complaining about the lack of interviews with the Danish media in Danish.

 

[highpriestess]

Letizia spoke English even before she married, just not to a particularly high level, her "princess training' included classes in high level diplomatic English. Mathilde can speak Dutch she was raised bi-lingual but she speaks it with a French accent. It's Queen Paola who doesn't speak Dutch or very little. Henrik speaks Danish, what isn't proper about it is that he has a very heavy French accent and that's what he's lampooned for. Silvia too speaks Swedish and what isn't proper with her Swedish is that she has a heavy German accent.
In contrast Maxima who also learned Dutch as an adult and from scratch was able to learn Dutch well enough that she could speak to the Dutch press in Dutch at her engagement announcement.

Exactly. If Letizia didn't speak English, she wouldn't have been sent to cover 9/11 in New York or 2000 presidential election in US by her company. But whatever level her English is, Letizia won't be the queen of an English-speaking country. Mary will be the queen of a Danish-speaking country. These two are not equivalent.

 

[Madame Royale]

Well complaining about that would be rather silly I agree Madame Royale but I thought they were complaining about the lack of interviews with the Danish media in Danish.

True true.

I wasn't so much commenting on interviews per say, just the media's longing for more and more information, and when that information isn't handed over their ability to become incessantly unsympathetic towards that person(s) is quite common.

I wonder how many people would give Mary's public speaking the depth of thought they clearly have, if it weren't for the media's constant scrutiny and judgement.

Hope I'm making sense..haha

I would have replied more, but as it stands, I'm needed elswhere so I apologise for my premature departue from this discussion

 

[ysbel]

Announcing a list of patronages has as much value as the paper it prints on. IIRC, most of the patronages Mary was assigned to early on was inherited from her in-laws. She didn't do much for those patronages especially early on.

But she started being seen at fashion shows before her marriage, posting for fashion magazines and being hyped as a "fashion icon" about the time of her first trip to Australia. She was "associated" with fashion long before she established her identity in any other associations.

So what you are saying is that Mary was first associated with fashion shows. And therefore Mary has a shallow personality?

Why don't you tell us why you think this way rather than just repeat it over and over again? Your statements don't make any more sense than the first time you made these statement a couple of pages ago.

 

[wiwaxia]

And the word for today is, journalist's! Need anymore be said...

Princess Royal? Oh this is becoming too much!

Unless of course one has a personal connection with CPMary (etc), there is no alternative, they are the source for the opinions around here!

 

[Madame Royale]

Unless of course one has a personal connection with CPMary (etc), there is no alternative, they are the source for the opinions around here!

Unless of course people are gullible enough to believe everything they read.

And well, this thread takes the cake!

 

[ysbel]

I wonder how many people would lgive Mary's public speaking the depth of thought they have, if it weren't for the media's constant scrutiny and judgement.

That is true; I think Crown Princess Margaret of Sweden had a tough time with the Swedish language when she first started and always had an accent. The media being what it was back then; people weren't confronted with her bad Swedish at first. Although I heard her Swedish, though accented, became quite good.

But I think the average person meets many more people in a single day than our grandparents or great-grandparents did so the ability to speak well with different people and to do it more often is more important now than during Crown Princess Margaret's time.

 

[Madame Royale]

But I think the average person meets many more people in a single day than our grandparents or great-grandparents did so the ability to speak well with different people and to do it more often is more important now than during Crown Princess Margaret's time.

I do understand. And a good point made at that.

 

[highpriestess]

Diana's changes were pretty significant in her first year: she went from being on Blackwell's worst dressed list to the most stylish woman in the world in about the same time as Mary has been a princess. Diana's clothing choices her first year as a princess were horrendous and they got immediately better after William was born only one year later and definitely before Harry's birth. You can see the difference in the clothing she wore when she came out of the hospital with William compared to the clothes she wore when she came out of the hospital with Harry only two years later. What a transformation in such a short time and I still don't believe its fake any more than I believe Mary is fake.

I think you and I have a different opinion on denizens of fashion. Audrey definitely followed fashion and fashion shows were her passion long after she grew older and didn't feel comfortable wearing the latest styles. Her clothes were trendsetting but that may have been more due to the influence of her designer Hubert de Givenchy who saw Hepburn as the perfect canvas for his designs. Its debatable whether the real creative fashion mind belonged to Audrey or whether it belonged to de Givenchy. It doesn't change my opinion of La Grande Hepburn at all but I believe in giving credit where credit is due and credit for Audrey's trendsetting I think does not fairly rest on her shoulders alone.

But my point is that Audrey with her acting, her work for UNICEF is much more than the sum of what clothes she wore even though she cared deeply about fashion and the clothes she wore.

Still I refuse to call Audrey Hepburn shallow even though she was a lowly actress and interested in fashion. So if I dare not call Audrey shallow, how can I call Mary shallow? It defies reason.

First, having better clothes after two years is very different from someone who changes skin color, accent, weight and clothes within just months. Diana might have gotten better clothes, but she didn't change her physical appearance.

Second, you probably need to read more about Audrey Hepburn. Previous custome designers of her movie "Funny Face" said she would pick out all the outfits herself and match items up herself. That include the black turtle neck and black slim pants that she made famous. Givenchy said the first time Hepburn visit him in Paris, Audrey walked in in capri pants and flat ballerina shoes, something hardly fashionable in Paris at the time. But she wore them with confidence and looked ultra chic. Capri pants and flat ballerina shoes have been popular till today. She's much more than just a muse for Givenchy. She had an inner sense of style that is not matched even today.

Third, Audrey Hepburn was taken much more seriously than a shallow actress or fashion icon AFTER she started working with UNICEF. Before that, she's beloved and popular but not taken seriously. Again, I'm not talking about "personality" here. I'm talking about "public perception". The public didn't Hepburn seriously until her work with UNICEF. If Mary starts devoting as much time to a serious cause and work diligently with a serious world organization as Audrey Hepburn did, after a few years, public perception of her will change too.

 

[highpriestess]

So what you are saying is that Mary was first associated with fashion shows. And therefore Mary has a shallow personality?

Why don't you tell us why you think this way rather than just repeat it over and over again? Your statements don't make any more sense than the first time you made these statement a couple of pages ago.

My post was a response to someone who posted a timeline of patronage announcement as if that disproved the same point Charlotte and I made. It didn't. Too bad you chose to be condescending when you don't understand the points made.

 

[wiwaxia]

Well is it true or not?

How often do we see Mary speak Danish in public?

This is something that is easily quantifiable. If she's speaking in public, someone in the public should be able to hear her and say whether she's speaking in Danish or English. One can count the number of times she speaks Danish in public.

Then and only then will we be able to tell if the journalist was imparting false information.

So who knows how often Mary speaks Danish in public?

btw Madame Royale, by Princess Royal do you mean Princess Anne? It is the correct title, I just caught that is what you meant.

Well, it depends what one means by 'speaking in public', a quick riposte on her way into an engagement? - categorised as small talk in reality, should be a honed accomplishment for her at this stage. If the reference is to speeches, then she has made an average of 4 a year since her initiation as a royal, possibly written by the scribes at the palace.

The journalist, Qvortrup, can not be accused for 'imparting false information', he has written an article defining his opinion, aquired from his observation of the princess and her command of the danish language, and her apparent reluctance and avoidance for confrontation in the language of the country in which she will one day be Queen.

 

[wiwaxia]

Unless of course people are gullible enough to believe everything they read.

And well, this thread takes the cake!

Two sides to every coin, and an alternative view, from the journalist Qvortrup is just as valid. I assume that being 'gullible' would also apply if the report in S&H had applauded the subject matter?!

 

[ysbel]

First, having better clothes after two years is very different from someone who changes skin color, accent, weight and clothes within just months. Diana might have gotten better clothes, but she didn't change her physical appearance.

Diana's changes were much more significant than a few changes of wardrobe. She was several, several pounds thinner a couple of years after her marriage than she was during the engagement. She lost many more pounds than Mary did. Her makeup application was a lot lighter and more sophisticated because she hired a professional makeup artist to apply it whereas before she had put it on herself favoring blue eyeshadow that the stylist had some difficulty to talk her out of. Her skin looked smoother because of the more professional application of makeup. She also experimented with her hair color, going several shades lighter than her natural ashy blonde hair to the point where her hairdresser Kevin warned her that she was going to ruin her hair. Previously she had only put highlights in her hair but after her marriage she had gone almost totally to the lighter shade. She also experimented with her hair length culminating with the famous showstopper sweptup bangs hairstyle that upstaged the Queen's speech to Parliament. There was a significant change of hairstyle, loss of weight from the engagement to the marriage (a period of six months) and an even more significant change after that first year.

Second, you probably need to read more about Audrey Hepburn. Previous custome designers of her movie "Funny Face" said she would pick out all the outfits herself and match items up herself. That include the black turtle neck and black slim pants that she made famous. Givenchy said the first time Hepburn visit him in Paris, Audrey walked in in capri pants and flat ballerina shoes, something hardly fashionable in Paris at the time. But she wore them with confidence and looked ultra chic. Capri pants and flat ballerina shoes have been popular till today. She's much more than just a muse for Givenchy. She had an inner sense of style that is not matched even today.

Well I'm reading an interview now with Hubert de Givenchy and he did mention that that Audrey had a strong sense of style but he said she showed it by augmenting the outfits he created with one particular element of her own choosing and that the two had a partnership. The Audrey Hepburn image was a collaboration between the two artists. That is what I meant.

Third, Audrey Hepburn was taken much more seriously than a shallow actress or fashion icon AFTER she started working with UNICEF. Before that, she's beloved and popular but not taken seriously. Again, I'm not talking about "personality" here. I'm talking about "public perception". The public didn't Hepburn seriously until her work with UNICEF. If Mary starts devoting as much time to a serious cause and work diligently with a serious world organization as Audrey Hepburn did, after a few years, public perception of her will change too.

I'm glad you brought up this point because it highlights something significant. Audrey Hepburn started her work with UNICEF as a second career at the age of 60. She had already achieved the heights of her profession (Oscar, Tony, etc.) and her children were grown adults. Mary is 35 in a new job as Crown Princess and two children under the age of 5. Mary is in a very different stage of her life than Audrey was.

Audrey had said that she wanted to devote the rest of her time to UNICEF because she had been given so much during her long life that she wanted to give something back. She had to have a long life to experience and appreciate the gifts that she had been given before turning around and wanting to give it back.

Audrey's association with UNICEF was strongest because a UNICEF package kept her from starvation as a child in wartorn Holland during WWII. UNICEF was not just a charity that Hepburn picked up just to make herself seem more significant; her work with UNICEF came naturally out of the rest of her life. When Mary is 60, she may have that gravitas that Audrey achieved at that age and do something wonderful for mankind but she is not there yet.

 

[ysbel]

Well, it depends what one means by 'speaking in public', a quick riposte on her way into an engagement? - categorised as small talk in reality, should be a honed accomplishment for her at this stage. If the reference is to speeches, then she has made an average of 4 a year since her initiation as a royal, possibly written by the scribes at the palace.

The journalist, Qvortrup, can not be accused for 'imparting false information', he has written an article defining his opinion, aquired from his observation of the princess and her command of the danish language, and her apparent reluctance and avoidance for confrontation in the language of the country in which she will one day be Queen.

Before I decide whether his report is accurate I need to know how many times he really heard her speak Danish compared to how many times a royal would be expected to speak Danish. That's why I later changed my mind and said it wasn't quantifiable. I think though that what he is talking about and what the other journalist is talking about are her number of interviews with Danish journalists in Danish and that is quantifiable. Apparently she hasn't done one in a couple of years and that would be a cause for concern.

 

[Madame Royale]

Two sides to every coin, and an alternative view, from the journalist Qvortrup is just as valid. I assume that being 'gullible' would also apply if the report in S&H had applauded the subject matter?!

I certainly take into consideration what it is, I believe, you're stating. Make no mistake about that.

Though, the fact anyone is willingly taking anything from either SogH or BB and not question the purpose or validity of a claim does not surprise me.

Afterall, what would a journalists purpose be if they are unable to sway or encourage their point of view onto another, and another and so on and so forth...

I'm not in need of some overworked and underpayed reporter telling me how it is or how it should be. Though, that's just me.

Apparently she hasn't done one in a couple of years and that would be a cause for concern.

If it 'is' so, then I would very much like to see the 'matter' rectified.

 

[wiwaxia]

Before I decide whether his report is accurate I need to know how many times he really heard her speak Danish compared to how many times a royal would be expected to speak Danish. That's why I later changed my mind and said it wasn't quantifiable. I think though that what he is talking about and what the other journalist is talking about are her number of interviews with Danish journalists in Danish and that is quantifiable. Apparently she hasn't done one in a couple of years and that would be a cause for concern.

This is the crux of the matter it seems, and her reluctance for expansion when she makes appearances, - her confinement to monosyllabic answers has become an irritation. The article is an observation, and a conclusion of his evaluation of the princesses performance. I would think that a royal persona speaking in Denmark to Danes, should speak Danish, that can not be a matter for dispute!

 

[JessRulz]

Well, it depends what one means by 'speaking in public', a quick riposte on her way into an engagement? - categorised as small talk in reality, should be a honed accomplishment for her at this stage. If the reference is to speeches, then she has made an average of 4 a year since her initiation as a royal, possibly written by the scribes at the palace...

In the past three years ('05, '06, '07), Mary has made 14 speeches. They are all listed on kronprinsparret.dk here

And why does everyone assume Mary's speeches (and other princess' too) are written by scribes? I highly doubt any of the current Crown Princesses would allow someone to write their speeches for them. Sure, someone would probably type it out on a nice piece of palace stationery, but I'm sure all of the Crown Princesses (Mary included) would write the majority of their speeches, with some help for fluency/punctuation/etc. I know I have help with fluency/punctuation/etc. when I need to make speeches for school

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

And why does everyone assume Mary's speeches (and other princess' too) are written by scribes? I highly doubt any of the current Crown Princesses would allow someone to write their speeches for them. Sure, someone would probably type it out on a nice piece of palace stationery, but I'm sure all of the Crown Princesses (Mary included) would write the majority of their speeches, with some help for fluency/punctuation/etc. I know I have help with fluency/punctuation/etc. when I need to make speeches for school

To be honest I don't think any crown princess or prince writes his speeches himself unless he or she has a special talent or interest to do so. They might give input or a direction but it is done by employees of the Royal Houses as the content of a speech can be a difficult or tricky issue. The CP's job is to give a good performance when delivering the speech.

 

[Madame Royale]

In the past three years ('05, '06, '07), Mary has made 14 speeches. They are all listed on kronprinsparret.dk here

And why does everyone assume Mary's speeches (and other princess' too) are written by scribes? I highly doubt any of the current Crown Princesses would allow someone to write their speeches for them. Sure, someone would probably type it out on a nice piece of palace stationery, but I'm sure all of the Crown Princesses (Mary included) would write the majority of their speeches, with some help for fluency/punctuation/etc. I know I have help with fluency/punctuation/etc. when I need to make speeches for school

I don't doubt that they contribute to the document, though it is not they who draft their own speeches. They have people employed to do that for them as has been the case for goodness knows how long with most royal families, if not all

 

[UserDane]

IIRC, most of the patronages Mary was assigned to early on was inherited from her in-laws.

I know that she took over her patronage of the heart association from Prince Henrik and the Børnehjælpsdagen had been a patronage of the late Queen Ingrid who again had interited it from one in the family since the Børnehjælpsdagen has enjoyed royal patronage since 1907. But perhaps it is only questionable when Mary inherits it

She didn't do much for those patronages especially early on.

Interesting. I didn't know that she didn't do much - how did you come about this knowledge?
What is 'not much' compared to her collegues for example (other CPss).
I didn't know a thing about the Danish Federation of Mental Health for example until Mary took on this patronage and I read about her attendence at a weekend seminar (when Christian was still an infant) for prevention of suicides amongst young people. So in my book she 'did' something by way of
making me and probably others as well aware of the problems this federation is dealing with; the mental issue has not had a very high profile before (still no photographers lining up to report about the goings-on there so we might as well discount this patronage right away and concentrate on fashion huhh.... )

Somehow I have a distinct impression that Mary is expected to do X times more than other CPss before being equally recognized. Sad ...

 

[UserDane]

I don't doubt that they contribute to the document, though it is not they who draft their own speeches. They have people employed to do that for them as has been the case for goodness knows how long with most royal families, if not all

Margrethe writes her own famous New Year's speeches!

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Still I refuse to call Audrey Hepburn shallow even though she was a lowly actress and interested in fashion. So if I dare not call Audrey shallow, how can I call Mary shallow? It defies reason.

Audrey Hepburn was "lowly" - well, then, anybody besides Royality is lowly. Audrey was born to the Dutch nobility and was the niece of a lady-in-waiting to the Dutch queen, a baroness who personally helped raise her niece. Thus Audrey had the manners and the breeding of a noble lady, even though she worked as an actress.

 

[Madame Royale]

Margrethe writes her own famous New Year's speeches!

Ooops, she does too

Apologies

 

[UserDane]

No need for apologies Madame Royale

 

[wiwaxia]

I certainly take into consideration what it is, I believe, you're stating. Make no mistake about that.

Though, the fact anyone is willingly taking anything from either SogH or BB and not question the purpose or validity of a claim does not surprise me.

Afterall, what would a journalists purpose be if they are unable to sway or encourage their point of view onto another, and another and so on and so forth...

I'm not in need of some overworked and underpayed reporter telling me how it is or how it should be. Though, that's just me.



If it 'is' so, then I would very much like to see the 'matter' rectified.

Thanks for taking my statement into consideration Madame Royale!

IMO there is no validity to be proven, it is a fact that TRH'nesses have not given an interview to the Danish press, but have obliged the foreign press, and this is the bone of contention that motivated the article, along with the possible reasons for this deficit.

Have you further information regarding your last statement involving the economic, and fatigued state of the person I think you are referring to, namely Qvortrup, - my apologies in advance if you meant someone else!

(The last quote in your post is not mine)

 

[Alisa]

IMO there is no validity to be proven, it is a fact that TRH'nesses have not given an interview to the Danish press, but have obliged the foreign press, and this is the bone of contention that motivated the article, along with the possible reasons for this deficit.

There is validity to be proven. Because Qvortrup writes for the press (a tabloid magazine at that) doesn't mean his words are golden. In fact, because the publication he writes for isn't considered serious journalism he can embellish whatever information he desires to fit his agenda.

There has been no shortage of interviews given to the Danish press. The fact is that the first extensive interview with the Crown Princess was given to a quality Danish newspaper. Over the years the couple has given interviews to several smaller danish publications on topics like health and fitness. IIRC Mary even gave an interview to a Greenland magazine shortly after the official visit there.

She is doing her job. She has given extensive speeches in Danish and she speaks Danish when talking to Danes at her various engagement. There is no need to give an interview every week or month to prove anything.

Qvortrup needs to accept the fact that the S&H will probably never get an interview from the couple.