"1015 København K" by Trine Villemann (2007)

[Elspeth]

As I said, Abbie, we'll have to agree to disagree about whether the book was flawless. In my opinion, there were things Trine could have done which would have improved it; in yours, it's already perfect. Whatever works, I suppose.

 

[sneeuwklokje]

You can agree with the book or you don't. But if it has supposedly caused a witchhunt in the Palace as to who has been talking or not, there must be a considerable amount of truth in it.

 

[UserDane]

You can agree with the book or you don't. But if it has supposedly caused a witchhunt in the Palace as to who has been talking or not, there must be a considerable amount of truth in it.

A "witchhunt"?? ... at Amalienborg? LOL - I think some ground connection wouldn't be all amiss in the linguistic use here

 

[sneeuwklokje]

Why is that? Is the Palace haunted anyway??

 

[MARG]

"Here we go again"? I guess I missed the edict that it's some sort of crime or sin to point out a book's perceived flaws. . .

It has been a repeated refrain on this thread. Query or question the author's take on any part of this book leads to:

If you don't like my "voice of authority," as you call it, then what are you doing here? If you can't recommend my book, why do you bother engaging me at all? . . . . . .

Nuff said.

 

[HRH Abigail]

As I said, Abbie, we'll have to agree to disagree about whether the book was flawless. In my opinion, there were things Trine could have done which would have improved it; in yours, it's already perfect. Whatever works, I suppose.

Elspeth, I don't recall ever stating that I think Trine's book is "perfect" .....

-- Abbie

 

[TheTruth]

I still don't get what all the fuss here, is about.
But, maybe I am not meant to, being that I am not a Dane nor do I live in a country with Royalty.

-- Abbie

I don't think that makes a difference. I don't live in a country with Royalty either (although sometimes I doubt ) and I'm not a Dane like most of the people posting in this thread but it's a debate where members discuss and of course there are agreements and disagreements. I mean, we have already experienced it with Tina Brown's book (thread) and we could have qualified it as a complete 'fuss' but didn't because the discussion remained quite civilized. Now is it because the author wasn't around, I don't know. Maybe it's indeed a factor.

 

[kimebear]

How can I put this? There is a reference to someone's observation about Queen Margrethe's female body parts after seeing her sport a tutu, and although the words used are pretty vulgar, still I found the revelation almost endearing to read because it just underlined how very human this elegant woman really is!
Sorry, but I can't be more specific publicly.

I think I'm going to have to disagree that vulgar discussion on the body parts of the Queen of Denmark could be considered "endearing". Maybe to you HRH Abigail, but probably not to most readers.

 

[Elspeth]

Elspeth, I don't recall ever stating that I think Trine's book is "perfect" .....

-- Abbie

You haven't uttered a breath of criticism, and when someone else does, you show up in completely uncritical defence of the book and the author. You don't have to say explicitly, "I think the book is perfect"; your posts make it quite clear. IMO, from dealing with authors in my real-life job for many years, uncritical adoration is actually not doing the author a favour. There are very few books out there that couldn't stand improvement in one form or other.

 

[HRH Abigail]

I don't think that makes a difference. I don't live in a country with Royalty either (although sometimes I doubt ) and I'm not a Dane like most of the people posting in this thread but it's a debate where members discuss and of course there are agreements and disagreements. I mean, we have already experienced it with Tina Brown's book (thread) and we could have qualified it as a complete 'fuss' but didn't because the discussion remained quite civilized. Now is it because the author wasn't around, I don't know. Maybe it's indeed a factor.

Gotcha. Glad to know I am not the only one, then.

-- Abbie

 

[HRH Abigail]

I think I'm going to have to disagree that vulgar discussion on the body parts of the Queen of Denmark could be considered "endearing". Maybe to you HRH Abigail, but probably not to most readers.

I took it more jokingly than some. That is, I can think something's vulgar and label it as being such, but can still see the humour in it all. Hang on, though. I can edit my post to more accurately reflect my stance, seeing as the post has been a bit misconstrued.

 

[HRH Abigail]

You haven't uttered a breath of criticism, and when someone else does, you show up in completely uncritical defence of the book and the author. You don't have to say explicitly, "I think the book is perfect"; your posts make it quite clear. IMO, from dealing with authors in my real-life job for many years, uncritical adoration is actually not doing the author a favour. There are very few books out there that couldn't stand improvement in one form or other.

Elspeth, I really don't want to argue with you, here. I also don't think it would be in my best interest to do so, either. I only wanted to put a positive spin on my review of the book, because of all the flack that the authour appears to have weathered here, that's all. I think if you read between the lines of my review, then you might see that I don't think the thing is perfect. But, that being said, it not being perfect didn't diminish my enjoyment of it one bit.

 

[HRH Abigail]

I am going to strongly urge my wife Trine to stop posting here.
It is a complete waste of time.
If she was to say that something was black and white,most of the posters here would describe it as lime green with pink spots.
And my final word is...
If you want to preserve the mystique of Royalty...don't wear a tutu.
Goodbye.

Hang on, Malcolm. Stay here. Please, dont' leave in a huff.
I still want to read what you post.
And, I agree with you in that I don't think the whole mystique of royalty should be preserved, either. One must let daylight in upon the magic, sometime, after all ...

-- Abbie

 

[Elspeth]

Elspeth, I really don't want to argue with you, here. I also don't think it would be in my best interest to do so, either. I only wanted to put a positive spin on my review of the book, because of all the flack that the authour appears to have weathered here, that's all. I think if you read between the lines of my review, then you might see that I don't think the thing is perfect. But, that being said, it not being perfect didn't diminish my enjoyment of it one bit.

Just FYI, people have argued with me on a whole lot of threads without their best interest being compromised.

Just so you know.

 

[Zonk]

But shouldn't a whif of mystique remain? I mean by all means...yes royals are just like us but not totally...because if they are...I mean whats the point?

Personally...I don't need to know anything about Diana wearing underwear or not...and nothing about the Queen of Denmark's body parts. Unless you are going for the tabolid, thrill aspect.....a true behind the scenes books stands out on the merits of the behind the scenes. Just a thought.

 

[HRH Abigail]

Just FYI, people have argued with me on a whole lot of threads without their best interest being compromised.

Just so you know.

Alright. I appreciate your attitude.
I feel better about challenging you but, I still am not keen on doing it. sorry. Someone else might easily object, and I am trying to be more careful about what I post online, these days

-- Abbie

 

[HRH Abigail]

But shouldn't a whif of mystique remain? I mean by all means...yes royals are just like us but not totally...because if they are...I mean whats the point?

Personally...I don't need to know anything about Diana wearing underwear or not...and nothing about the Queen of Denmark's body parts. Unless you are going for the tabolid, thrill aspect.....a true behind the scenes books stands out on the merits of the behind the scenes. Just a thought.

Oh, sure ... a whiff should remain. But, the Royals (more and more, in my opinion) need to be perceived as being who they are, and who they are is human, above everything else. Knowing a little about their gaffes, helps everyone identify with them, too, plus it makes any book a little more compellingly readable and ... well, fun!

 

[Madame Royale]

I am going to strongly urge my wife Trine to stop posting here.
It is a complete waste of time.
If she was to say that something was black and white,most of the posters here would describe it as lime green with pink spots.
And my final word is...
If you want to preserve the mystique of Royalty...don't wear a tutu.
Goodbye.

I'd thought you had already left...?

moving on...

Knowing a little about their gaffes

Or intent to exploit as has been, imo, the case. There's no show of commonality or endearment here, and the book was hardly constructed to encourage it. They are being judged for, as you say, their supposed 'gaffes'...for their human 'side'.

While your opinion and your certainly as welcome as I, to share it...I entirely disagree with you, respectively.

 

[HRH Abigail]

I'd thought you had already left...?

Gee, I liked having ole Malcolm here ... well, except when he called we all "Fascists", . That was a bit sticky .....

 

[Madame Royale]

Just a tad...

 

[Esmeralda]

Gee, I liked having ole Malcolm here ... well, except when he called we all "Fascists", . That was a bit sticky .....

He made four posts. Starting with the accusation that we might as well be fascists and saying he would be silenced for his post. And ending with two Goodbye posts because the forum wasn't good enough for him and Trine. Really, what's to like? Seriously? Is this also endearing? LOL

 

[HRH Abigail]

Just a tad...

Hahaha, yes
Well, what can I tell you?
Malcolm's very opinionated and has a very lively sense of humour, but really ... he's a warm fellow once you penetrate his surface. I have found him to be accomodating and good-hearted, albeit quite honest.
The fellow's just republican through & through, and thinks Royals are all "po'faced toffs", really
You gotta love Malcolm!
I wish he'd come here and contribute.
He likes http://www.royaldish.com though.
I went there and found it to be a bit haaaarsh, if you will.

Is it legal to put up links to other Royal Websites, here?
If it is not, let me know right away and I will take reference to this site, down.

 

[Al_bina]

Gee, I liked having ole Malcolm here ... well, except when he called we all "Fascists", . That was a bit sticky ..... [my bolding]

Well ... a rather strong word to describe us. Did Ms. Villemann and her husband expect us to blindly believe every word they uttered? When one claims "penning" a controversial book, he or she should expect both negavtive and positive opinions. Ms. Villemann happens to be a writer, who might know a lot about the Danish Royal family. However, she is not the only authority on the subject. In the end, it would be much better, if Mr. Brabant (if I am not mistaken) and Ms.Villemann abstain from participating in the discussion... in my personal opinion.

 

[HRH Abigail]

That is a rather strong word to describe us. Did Ms Villemann and her husband expect us to blindly believe every word they uttered? She is just a writer, who might know a lot about the Danish Royal family. However, she is the only authority on the subject.

Oh, I agree that we are not fascists, too!

No, Trine doesn't expect people to blindly believe everything we read or hear.
She knows folks here aren't stupid.
But, I think she might (just a guess) have been a bit taken aback by how much she was challenged.

I really should not speak for her, though, should I?

-- Abbie

 

[Elspeth]

Hahaha, yes
Well, what can I tell you?
Malcolm's very opinionated and has a very lively sense of humour, but really ... he's a warm fellow once you penetrate his surface. I have found him to be accomodating and good-hearted, albeit quite honest.
The fellow's just republican through & through, and thinks Royals are all "po'faced toffs", really
You gotta love Malcolm!
I wish he'd come here and contribute.
He likes http://www.theroyaldish.com though.
I went there and found it to be a bit haaaarsh, if you will.

Is it legal to put up links to other Royal Websites, here?
If it is not, let me know right away and I will take reference to this site, down.

Yes, it's legal to put up links to other royal websites, but for the sake of maintaining good relations we don't want to get into critical discussions of them. So if we can just leave the discussion of the Dish with the observation that you found it harsher than what goes on here and move on, it would be much appreciated.

If you want to know what's legal around here, by the way, the rules can be accessed from the blue band at the bottom of any forum page, as can a set of member FAQs, which can also be found in this thread in the Support and Feedback forum. Plus, there are links in the signatures of a lot of the mods and admins.

Hope that helps.

 

[Madame Royale]

You gotta love Malcolm!

No, I don't believe you do..

Malcolm's very opinionated and has a very lively sense of humour, but really ... he's a warm fellow once you penetrate his surface. I have found him to be accomodating and good-hearted, albeit quite honest.

Lively sense of humour? I wouldn't know and I can assure you I have no interest in 'penetrating' his surface...I find generic stereotyping quite the juvenile thing to do.

And with all due respect to you, it's little wonder you would find him accommodating and good hearted as you've seemed quite taken by their presence.

I think she might (just a guess) have been a bit taken aback by how much she was challenged.

Which would surprise me, if so, given her chosen line of work.

 

[HRH Abigail]

Yes, it's legal to put up links to other royal websites, but for the sake of maintaining good relations we don't want to get into critical discussions of them. So if we can just leave the discussion of the Dish with the observation that you found it harsher than what goes on here and move on, it would be much appreciated.

If you want to know what's legal around here, by the way, the rules can be accessed from the blue band at the bottom of any forum page, as can a set of member FAQs, which can also be found in this thread in the Support and Feedback forum. Plus, there are links in the signatures of a lot of the mods and admins.

Hope that helps.

Gotcha!

I was openly asking about rules here, because ... I am on a public computer, at the library right now, and I am timed. So, I don't always have all that much time to read thru' all the rules of wherever, whenever I might like to do so. If I owned my own computer, I could devote more time to sitting down and going through the rules here, as often as I might like to do so. I guess my point is that by asking if something's legal, I was hoping someone would just pipe up and say "yes" or "no" and then I'd know straightaway.

And, that's exactly what you have just done for that, so thanks!

Almost out of time -- a minute left.

Until tomorrow,

Abbie

 

[Empress]

Well, even though I said I had nothing more to add to this discussion, after conversing with a few others, I do have this to add.

It is my opinion that the historical portion of the book was just a vehicle for the author to be able to add in the last little bit with all of her opinions and criticisms. I doubt seriously (and the author admitted as much when she posted regarding her conversation with her editor) that the book would have been published at all if it had not contained the historical side. Thus the author had to find some fairly checkable facts to lend at least a little credence to what she was writing. Again, my opinion, but it was only a vehicle for her to make innuendos and graceless remarks. Much like the sub -title of the book "Mary's dysfunctional in-laws" which make it seem as if the book has a lot to do with Mary, is in my opinion a way for the author to make more money selling the book.

And to add to that, all of the historical information has already been written and published by other, more respected, authors, with more standing and credibility in their field. So this author, has in my opinion, just parroted the work of others, simply to give way to making her own opinions known.

It would make it a bit easier, if the author would actually answer the questions that challenge her, but she seems to not want to do so, despite repeated requests from multiple members.

And now I really am done, as I don't think that there is anything more to say.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

It is my opinion that the historical portion of the book was just a vehicle for the author to be able to add in the last little bit with all of her opinions and criticisms.

That is my impression, too, from the way Villemann participates in the discussions here: a lot of innuendos, hints of secret knowledge and the fact that she is the author of this book are used as background for very negative opinions of the DRF.

 

[MARG]

That is my impression, too, from the way Villemann participates in the discussions here: a lot of innuendos, hints of secret knowledge and the fact that she is the author of this book are used as background for very negative opinions of the DRF.

From the "discussions" on this thread I absolutely concur. Moveover, she has used this thread as a means to establish an aura of "authority" that she neither has nor deserves in promoting her book, whilst treating any member who had dared to question any part of her book or posts, with utter contempt and distain.

It would make it a bit easier, if the author would actually answer the questions that challenge her, but she seems to not want to do so, despite repeated requests from multiple members.

Further, she attempts to use this implied secret inside information as weapon with which to silence her critics. We all deserve to be heard.