"1015 København K" - Trine Villemann

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

"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:

Originally Posted by villemann

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

-- Abbie

[TheTruth]

Originally Posted by HRH Abigail

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]

Originally Posted by HRH Abigail

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]

Originally Posted by HRH Abigail

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]

Originally Posted by TheTruth

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]

Originally Posted by kimebear

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]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

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]

Originally Posted by Brabant

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]

Originally Posted by HRH Abigail

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]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Madame Royale

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...