"1015 København K" by Trine Villemann (2007)

[Lilla]

I don't expect to change the Danish monarchy by talking to the Australian media, but when I am asked, I do answer

Do you expect to change the Danish monarchy by publishing your book i Australia?

 

[Warren]

The book is not published in Australia. The English-language version is only available though online ordering.

 

[TheTruth]

Just wanted to ask (don't take it personally, it's not an attack), do you believe you can be pretty unbiased when you do an interpretation of information you gather?

Perhaps you didn't see my question but can you explain why we should believe your book is fairly impartial when you went through an interpretation process? To me, it's incompatible trying to be neutral when you interpret an information.

 

[Lilla]

Ok, English is not your first language: Let me, therefore, explain in simlpler terms:

This is a forum open for people all over the world in which they can express their opinions and thoughts as long as they do so according to the rules of the forum.

For a lot of members English isn't their first language. Using "Oh, English is not your first language" as an argument against a member one disagrees with - is in my oppinion compleatly out of line with common decency.

 

[Elspeth]

Ok, English is not your first language: Let me, therefore, explain in simlpler terms: FOLLOWING the cartoons crisis,IMO (IN MY OPINION) the monarchy is more crucial that ever, because ,IMO (IN MY OPINION) it needs to work out how to protect Danish values without antagonizing Denmark's growing number of muslims. As a national rallying point the Danish Royal House IMO (IN MY OPINION) is facing it's biggest challenge in decades trying to make those two ends meet.

Well, good luck to them, because I have a feeling this is a set of incompatible objectives. I agree that a monarch might have a better chance than a politician, but if you have a case where the monarchy is tied fairly closely to a particular Christian denomination, then it might actually be counterproductive. You're right that immigration and multiculturalism are going to be really major issues in the future, but I'm not sure that the monarchies will be able to do too much more than provide a focus for the longer-term residents to preserve their identity in the face of the shift in society in general. In that respect there's a danger that they could actually be damaging and encourage the us-versus-them mindset. Prince Charles's interest in other cultures and his desire for religious and cultural tolerance aren't going down too well in Britain where too many people already feel that the national identity is threatened by immigration of groups who refuse to assimilate.

 

[Lilla]

The book is not published in Australia. The English-language version is only available though online ordering.

Thanks for correcting my mistake Warren

I will rephrase my question.

Do you expect to change the Danish monarchy by making your book available in English and market it via Australian media?

​

 

[Elspeth]

Let me identify myself.
I am Trine Villemann’s husband, Malcolm Brabant, and I am writing to stand up for my wife in the face of the unjustified vitriol being directed towards her.
I am also the editor of the English edition of 1015 Copenhagen K, and I adapted Trine’s translation from the original Danish.
I have been a journalist for more than 30 years.
And for the past 20 years I have been a foreign correspondent for the BBC.
I have been on assignment in more than 70 countries.
During that time I have won a couple of major reporting awards.
The reason I am telling you this is to vouch for and underline Trine’s journalistic credentials, not to brag about my own achievements.
Trine has been impeccable in sourcing the material for 1015 Copenhagen K.
I know the identity of her sources and, like her, I will take their names to the grave in order to protect them.
What I will say is that I was astonished at how close Trine got to the Danish Royal Family and at the scores of different sources she had.
Her sources are as good, if not better, than Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein’s anonymous “Deep Throat” from the Watergate scandal.
They certainly would pass the scrutiny of the editorial boards of the New York Times and the Washington Post.
I stand whole-heartedly and proudly beside my wife in this endeavour.
She is a fantastic, scrupulous, courageous journalist.
But that is not what you want to hear, and no doubt, I will be prevented from posting again.
The tenor of this forum is clearly from George Bush’s Texas.
It is - “You are either with us, or you are against us.”
No sane person needs to be reminded of the result of such attitudes.

Of course you won't. However, as you yourself acknowledged, the use of anonymous sources is pretty widespread when dealing with royalty and unfortunately it's been abused by certain journalists whose interest is not necessarily in factual reporting. That tends to make it easy for people to come up with the accusation that any journalist is abusing anonymous sources and very hard for the journalist to defend him/herself. Sometimes the only real defence is the test of time.

As far as the tenor of this forum, the only official moderator interventions here have been pretty much in support of Trine as far as I can see. Other moderators taking part in the conversation are doing so in their capacity as forum members, not moderators. We're trying to provide a forum where people with views across the board can express their opinions without being bullied or intimidated into silence. As I'm sure you're aware, the Danish royal family, and Princess Mary in particular, is one of the more contentious topics that's discussed at TRF, and people on both sides of the issue have strong feelings about it.

If you still have problems with the way this forum is being run, please address those concerns to the forum administrators by private message.

 

[Elspeth]

Hi Gaia, I have spread the message all over Denmark and I am still spreading it at every opportunity, I get. My book was initially published in Denmark in October 2007. I don't expect to change the Danish monarchy by talking to the Australian media, but when I am asked, I do answer As for Alexandra and Hong Kong. I am busy on that one for my next book! What is swiftboating?

"King of Greenland" is going to cover Alexandra and Hong Kong? Or is there a third book in the works?

 

[HRH Abigail]

Let me identify myself.
I am Trine Villemann’s husband, Malcolm Brabant, and I am writing to stand up for my wife in the face of the unjustified vitriol being directed towards her.
I am also the editor of the English edition of 1015 Copenhagen K, and I adapted Trine’s translation from the original Danish.
I have been a journalist for more than 30 years.
And for the past 20 years I have been a foreign correspondent for the BBC.
I have been on assignment in more than 70 countries.
During that time I have won a couple of major reporting awards.
The reason I am telling you this is to vouch for and underline Trine’s journalistic credentials, not to brag about my own achievements.
Trine has been impeccable in sourcing the material for 1015 Copenhagen K.
I know the identity of her sources and, like her, I will take their names to the grave in order to protect them.
What I will say is that I was astonished at how close Trine got to the Danish Royal Family and at the scores of different sources she had.
Her sources are as good, if not better, than Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein’s anonymous “Deep Throat” from the Watergate scandal.
They certainly would pass the scrutiny of the editorial boards of the New York Times and the Washington Post.
I stand whole-heartedly and proudly beside my wife in this endeavour.
She is a fantastic, scrupulous, courageous journalist.
But that is not what you want to hear, and no doubt, I will be prevented from posting again.
The tenor of this forum is clearly from George Bush’s Texas.
It is - “You are either with us, or you are against us.”
No sane person needs to be reminded of the result of such attitudes.

Cheers, Malcolm!

It's Abbie here. You and I corresponded about Trine's book by e-mail a few times. Nice to see you here.
Listen, I admire both of you for standing up to what you do, and realise what a difficult position both you and your wife are in, right now.
Neither of you comes across, to me at least, as being the least bit sensationalistic in our e-mail correspondences, and I think you are coming under such fire because you have dared to do what few people have, in the past, and that is criticise The Danish Royal Family. You have let "daylight in upon the magic" which even nowadays is still taboo, it appears.
By the way, if you are doing a book about The Countess of Fredensborg (Alexandra), I am also most interested in reading about that one, too. I have always liked reading about her. The Danes seem to really appreciate her and her contributions to their country and culture, no?

-- Abbie

 

[HRH Abigail]

Thanks very much for this review of the book, Norwegianne. It only piqued my interest in reading it, further.

-- Abbie

PS: I don't know why I didn't notice this entry earlier. I just saw it now. Oh, well ... Also, about critiquing any foreigner's knowledge of Danish? It is such a hard language to learn and pronounce, isn't it? I mean, I would think that if anyone could learn it to a medium degree of proficiency, then to that I would say, "Well done!"

 

[acdc1]

Sorry to interrupt the discussion, but is the book out in English yet?

 

[Elspeth]

Yes, it came out at the beginning of the month. It's only available directly from the author; she isn't selling it via the online bookstores. If you want to know how to get a copy, please send her a PM.

 

[auntie]

Swiftboating, from Wiki:
"Swift-boating's essence is a particular kind of dishonesty, or rather a particular combination of shadowy dishonesties. It usually involves a complex web of facts, many of which may even be true. It exploits its own complexity and the reluctance of the media to adjudicate factual disputes. No matter how thoroughly a charge may be discredited, enough taint remains to support an argument. The fundamental dishonesty is the suggestion that the issue, whatever it is, really matters."

It is an American term coined to describe a certain type of political attack.

I think what Trinnie meant here, was not that she lied, but was being kind of diplomatic about her experiences, and wanted the public to beleive only the good, bright and posotive side of her relationship and decision making. Sometimes the truth can be understood in different ways.

 

[MARG]

I think what Trinnie meant here, was not that she lied, but was being kind of diplomatic about her experiences, and wanted the public to beleive only the good, bright and posotive side of her relationship and decision making. Sometimes the truth can be understood in different ways.

I must beg to differ. Trine, by her own posts, asserted things that were definitely not diplomatic in nature and were certainly not aimed making the public believe only the good, bright, and positive side of anything not least herself. She asserts that she has a mission to share her truth to expose the "spin" and lay bare the real DRF.

My question is, having tried to rip the defenses of the DRF away, exposing the Danish Royal Family and Frederik and Mary in particular ridicule, and intense prying into the family relationships, just what was Trine's objective?

 

[sneeuwklokje]

Maybe her objective was to show us the other side of the DRF, that absolutely exists, there is bound to be more than moonshine and roses as in every family. I have only read little pieces of the book, but I think she has done a good job.

 

[Empress]

Okay, I can get that. However, based on the posts here, and not on having read the book, it appears that a great majority of the book is about documented history, and only at the end goes into what is apparently only the authors opinions. So I don't think that can be considered a factual rendering of the "other side" of the Danish Royal Family. More supposition and opinions based on "anonymous" sources, which can not be verified by anyone but Trine herself.

I would be more inclined to believe anonymous sources, from any writer, if they'd had a long or even a medium history on writing truthful, sourced out pieces. But it stretched my beliefs to believe that this is a factual rendering by someone who is writing their first book. That is my opinon, and luckily I am entitled to it. Frankly, I have the same scepticism when it comes to any other writer with little history behind them. It's nothing personal.

However, I might even have been able to overcome that, and read the book, except for the authors postings here, which I must only assume are an extension of her opinions written in her book, and until something backs up what she is saying here on the threads, and a majority can agree that the book is not just so much opinion as here in the threads, I think that I will wait.

 

[Elspeth]

My copy's just arrived (took nearly 3 weeks to get here according to the postmark ); as soon as I finish reading my book about the Dover PA trial, I'll get right to it.

 

[Lilla]

Maybe her objective was to show us the other side of the DRF

I am pretty sure you are right about that....

that absolutely exists,

I am sure you are right about that as well...

there is bound to be more than moonshine and roses as in every family. .

and that to, elsehow they wouldn't be humans and the organisation surrounding TRF wouldn't be at healthy one..........

The thing is though - it simply isn't the business of anybody else then the TRF or people employed - or having positions of trust - in the organisation surrounding them!

If Trine in fact had reliable sources inside the organisation - which I strongly doubt - they should to be sacked (Which is easy in Denmark as we have got one of the most liberal labourmarkets in the world). That is what any company would do to a disloyal employee or a disloyal person in a position of trust. Furthermore disloyalty can't be keept as a secret - management alwayes knows if there is a rotten egg in the nest. I know what I am talking about as I have worked with changes management all my career.

Morover working or having a position of trust in the organisation surrounding TRF is so prestigious that I don't think anybody will risk loosing that, just because some journalist tries to get privat informations about TRF. A person doing so - and finaly ending up getting sacked because it will be found out - will end up having very bad prospects of getting a job afterwards as this person woun't be capable of providing a referee giving good references. In Danmark practically all companies are asking candidates for referees. The risk of such a person falling drastically down the social ladder is 1000 times higher then the risk of monarcy ending in Denmark.

In fact if Trine really has those sources she claim - they must be incredible stupid.

 

[HRH Abigail]

My copy's just arrived (took nearly 3 weeks to get here according to the postmark ); as soon as I finish reading my book about the Dover PA trial, I'll get right to it.

Niiice, Elspeth! Really niiiiice. I am going to send away for the book just as soon as I hear back from Malcolm (Trine's husband) as to whether I can mail him a cheque or a MO for it. I am not going to go thru' paypal to get it, like most (do).

Elspeth, did you send a check or a MO (Money Order) for the book?

I am greatly looking forward to reading your review of it

-- Abbie

 

[Elspeth]

Niiice, Elspeth! Really niiiiice. I am going to send away for the book just as soon as I hear back from Malcolm (Trine's husband) as to whether I can mail him a cheque or a MO for it. I am not going to go thru' paypal to get it, like most (do).

Elspeth, did you send a check or a MO (Money Order) for the book?

I am greatly looking forward to reading your review of it

-- Abbie

Nope, I used PayPal. It's really straightforward to sign up and pretty easy to use.

 

[HRH Abigail]

Nope, I used PayPal. It's really straightforward to sign up and pretty easy to use.

Neat! Is it safe, Elspeth? I am so darn leery of buying stuff online ... Do you give PP your bank-card information or .... what? You can PM me if you wish so we don't go too far OT.

Thanks so much,

-- Abbie

 

[Madame Royale]

PayPal covers you if your purchase does not arrive, so any transaction you make, you would receive back. Yes, it's perfectly safe.

 

[Elspeth]

Neat! Is it safe, Elspeth? I am so darn leery of buying stuff online ... Do you give PP your bank-card information or .... what? You can PM me if you wish so we don't go too far OT.

Thanks so much,

-- Abbie

It's been safe so far. The worst thing is the spoof messages you get pretending that there are problems with your account so you'll send them your password. But you get that everywhere you sign up; I get these annoying spoof messages appearing to come from eBay and Amazon on a fairly regular basis. My ISP usually flags them as spam but a few get through. It isn't hard to tell the spam from genuine messages, though. Usually, anyway.

You can sign up with PayPal by giving them a credit card number, and then all purchases are paid via the credit card. They only let you do that for a total of $2000 (I think) and then you have to provide them with a bank account number to tie your PayPal account to. You can still pay with your credit card when you've done that, but you have the option of letting them take the money from your bank account. When I needed to tie my PayPal account to a bank account, we opened a bank account specially at a different bank from the one where we have our household account, and we only keep a small amount of money in it. That way, in the unlikely event that someone does hack into PayPal and manage to steal people's information and decrypt it, they can't do much damage to our bank accounts.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Maybe her objective was to show us the other side of the DRF, that absolutely exists, there is bound to be more than moonshine and roses as in every family. I have only read little pieces of the book, but I think she has done a good job.

Yes, but allow me to quote a bit from Tina Brown's book about Diana (p.459, Anchor books paperback edition of 2008): Situation is that Piers Morgan of the News of the World scooped the information that Diana had made nuisance calls to her lover Oliver Hoare. His boss Rupert Murdoch calls him after Diana told Richard Kay that the story was untrue and he duly printed it in the Daily Mail.

Morgan was in the shower when Murdoch called him. On the phone from New York, the media mogul told his editor, "The poor girl is cracking up. Give her a bit of peace."

And I thought on reading this: WHAT?

But, alas, Brown continues in a very revealing way about how people like Murdoch, Morgan and Villemann work as journalists:

Just kidding.

And describes how Murdoch told Morgan to expose Diana as a liar in order to sell more papers....

Why do I quote this? Because I got the impression that Villemann is as well one of the woolves who in a cynical way just would love to be able to expose Mary and Frederick. One who seeks the confidence and trust of people close to Mary in the hope that they start to talk to her and tell her as much as possible about the CP couple. One who proudly tells that after the publication of her book the RF started a "witch hunt" for her sources.
Does she think for a moment why they Royals did that? At least here in her numerous postings she didn't. But I have quite an idea about how it must feel to live a life in the public spotlight and than someone comes and tries to find out all about your last rest of privacy as well. Mary came from Australia - she had to leave her trusted friends back home and had to make new ones in Denmark. Now she must question each and any of them if he or she is willing to tell the likes of Villemann all they learn about the private Mary. How can she feel comfortable in her new home under such circumstances?

If this happened to a normal citizen, it would be called stalking, spying and prying, but as Villemann wrote here, she believes she owns the Royals as they live on public money. Like a self-made public prosecutor she requested weekly schedules of the CP couple in order to prove that they don't spent enough time working for the public who funds them - now who are they that they have to stand to attention for any self-proclaimed campaigner against their way to breathe life in the ancient monarchy of Denmark.

In my humble opinion Villemann's claim that she does all that prying and spying in order to get the information she needs to inform the public that the monarchy as it is is bad and must change is only her own spin on the fact that she's just a reporter hoping for a big scoop that will make her money. Because I seriously doubt that with Frederick and Mary there is such a hidden secret of incredible consequence to be found like it was with Nixon's Watergate involvement.No Pulitzer Prize to be won with "scandalous" stories about these two IMHO. So where is the reason who sanctifies the means in this case?

 

[sneeuwklokje]

IMHO it's not the book that get's discussed in this topic, everybody is after Villemann and how she got her information. There are countless other book about Royalty with (maybe questionable) information and no one is afther their authors. I'm not defending Trine, but is it something personal for a lot of posters here??

 

[UserDane]

IMHO it's not the book that get's discussed in this topic, everybody is after Villemann and how she got her information. There are countless other book about Royalty with (maybe questionable) information and no one is afther their authors. I'm not defending Trine, but is it something personal for a lot of posters here??

I don't think everybody is after Villemann; but Villemann herself has used this board as one big advertisement stunt for her own gain - to sell as many books as possible - and the bragging manner she has conducted herself in this thread, taking credit for the most unbelievable things, means that she must necessarily get some negative responses - not necessarily to her book but to her constant and indelicate promotion of herself.

Jo of Palatine - What an awsome and well-written post

 

[MARG]

IMHO it's not the book that get's discussed in this topic, everybody is after Villemann and how she got her information. There are countless other book about Royalty with (maybe questionable) information and no one is afther their authors. I'm not defending Trine, but is it something personal for a lot of posters here??

Ah, but then again Villemann is the only author of a (controversial) Royal book to sign up and post on line under her own name. As a consequence the whole discussion cannot help but be "personal".

It's called publicity, and there is no such thing as bad publicity . Forum members on this thread have informed us that they now can't wait to actually buy her book! Publicity sells books!

 

[enneagramj]

Hello all, speaking of publicity... Trine gives scant coverage of Princess Marie in her book. Wonder why?

Question for Trine Villemann about Princess Marie nee Cavallier: What is your opinion about the newcomer's chances of not divorcing Joachim? This couple is being marketed as having a lot more in common than Joachim & Alexandra ever had.

Thanks

 

[Elspeth]

Hello all, speaking of publicity... Trine gives scant coverage of Princess Marie in her book. Wonder why?

My guess would be the timing. This book came out last year in Denmark, before Joachim and Marie's wedding.

Question for Trine Villemann about Princess Marie nee Cavallier: What is your opinion about the newcomer's chances of not divorcing Joachim? This couple is being marketed as having a lot more in common than Joachim & Alexandra ever had.

Thanks

Could I ask you to please go and post this question in the Danish forum, where I'm sure Trine will be able to find it? We're trying to keep the topic of this thread on the book.

 

[Elspeth]

Yes, but allow me to quote a bit from Tina Brown's book about Diana (p.459, Anchor books paperback edition of 2008): Situation is that Piers Morgan of the News of the World scooped the information that Diana had made nuisance calls to her lover Oliver Hoare. His boss Rupert Murdoch calls him after Diana told Richard Kay that the story was untrue and he duly printed it in the Daily Mail.

And I thought on reading this: WHAT?

But, alas, Brown continues in a very revealing way about how people like Murdoch, Morgan and Villemann work as journalists:

And describes how Murdoch told Morgan to expose Diana as a liar in order to sell more papers....

Why do I quote this? Because I got the impression that Villemann is as well one of the woolves who in a cynical way just would love to be able to expose Mary and Frederick.

There's nothing wrong with wolves, you know....

However, having said that, and even if you want to call them hyenas , I tend to disagree at least on this particular point. I was getting pretty tired, and I know quite a few other people were too, of the way Diana's pals in the press spun everything so she was the sweet innocent victim of everyone else. In this case, not only did she and her pals deny that she'd made the nuisance calls, but they blamed someone else for it - a boy who had been identified by enough detail for his actual identity to be known by someone wanting to do a bit of elementary detective work. I don't know if they were fingering a child so he couldn't actually get prosecuted or what, but IMO that was a pretty unforgivable thing to do, and I don't think the press should have just rolled over and given up.

I do agree that they were hounding Diana, but that's at least partly because they knew they had a market and people would pay over the odds for personal stories and photos of her. In a free-market economy, as long as you stay within the confines of the law, the supply-demand business takes over. Then all you have to rely on are privacy laws and whether their enforcement has teeth.

One who seeks the confidence and trust of people close to Mary in the hope that they start to talk to her and tell her as much as possible about the CP couple. One who proudly tells that after the publication of her book the RF started a "witch hunt" for her sources.

Well, honestly, I'd hope that people genuinely close to Mary or the other royals would know better than to put their confidence and trust in any reporter. So far, and I'm not all that far through the book yet, I'd say that the lack of named sources is something of a weakness because there are so few actual named individuals. The royals are quite well placed to say "she made it up" because of this vagueness. In the British royal family, you even have people like Margaret Rhodes and Pamela Mountbatten saying somewhat less than complimentary things about some of the senior royals, so I assume it's possible to find someone who'll talk on the record. I don't know how common this sort of critical reporting is in Denmark, though, or whether the perception of the people around the royals is that this book really does constitute constructive criticism.

If this happened to a normal citizen, it would be called stalking, spying and prying, but as Villemann wrote here, she believes she owns the Royals as they live on public money. Like a self-made public prosecutor she requested weekly schedules of the CP couple in order to prove that they don't spent enough time working for the public who funds them - now who are they that they have to stand to attention for any self-proclaimed campaigner against their way to breathe life in the ancient monarchy of Denmark.

Yes, but the point is that it wouldn't happen to a normal citizen because there's no market for the stories. There may be a combination of motives here. Rupert Murdoch is a republican and you always have to wonder whether his papers are going after the royals because it sells, because it undermines the monarchy, because certain royals are in his bad books or what. Could be all of the above. In some cases it probably is a case of a reporter trying to force the royal family into giving value for money because of a perception that they're becoming freeloaders and damaging the monarchy and the reporter is trying to stop the rot. In some cases the motives of some of the reporters and photographers is pretty clear, but in some it really isn't.

I don't remember the Abdication personally (I'm getting on in years but I'm not quite that far gone!), but I remember reading about the year-long nationwide news blackout on the King's affair with Mrs Simpson and being appalled. My mother and grandmother, on the other hand, were both perfectly OK with it and thought that the King's position required this sort of deferential treatment by the press, and that his affair was nobody else's business and that it was fine for the upper echelons of society to know about it but for ordinary people (which included my mother and grandmother) to be kept in the dark. My problem with that (apart from the cynicism of the class system in their attitude that in an apparent democracy the vast majority of people didn't matter) is that if an institution controls the press, sooner or later they'll take advantage and abuse their position. Unfortunately, when you have the profit motive there as well, the press are also more than likely to abuse their position when doing investigative journalism, but I think it's better to have a situation like that than one where one side gets pretty much free rein.

There seem to be rumblings all over Europe about the commitment and value of the younger generation of royals. In Britain, Denmark, and Spain in particular there seems to be the perception that while you have a dedicated and much loved monarch, the heir (or in the British case, the generation of William, Harry, Beatrice and Eugenie) is a spoiled lazy brat who wants the privileges without the responsibilities and isn't really supported by the people. William is a bit of a special case because of the Diana-Camilla factor, but there are still a fair few people wondering if he does anything other than go nightclubbing. Again, it could be the work of republican elements in the press or it could be reporters and photographers who are feeding the public's demand for celebrity news or what. But we're going to need reporters to ask hard questions about both the royals and other reporters or we could end up with the institution of the monarchy being seriously undermined. Whether you think Trine is one of the good reporters or one of the bad ones is another matter. I don't really know enough about the Danish royals or the Danish royal reporters to be able to tell for certain what anyone's motives are. All I can say about the book at this point is that most of it isn't about Mary, and I'm not sure why so many people are focussing on her. That last chapter of the book seems to have really unbalanced it.