Esmerelda
Serene Highness
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2010
- Messages
- 1,199
- City
- London
- Country
- United Kingdom
A summary in English:
King: It was a long time ago - The Local
King: It was a long time ago - The Local
A summary in English:
King: It was a long time ago - The Local
I've read many books about royalty. The more modern day royals look like boy scouts or the guy who sings in the church choir if you compare them to Monarchs of the past. There is nothing nowadays that is scandalous or shocking since everything is pretty much out in the open. The public has heard it all, I think. 100 years ago it might be shocking but not so much today.
That being said, I am not sure I understand what the point of this book is...other than to embarass the King and Queen and possible wound the monarchy. If this is true, and by the King's statement/actions it might be, does the Queen need to relive this (if she didn't know before), do the children (although grown) need to be reminded of maybe a not so pleasant time of their childhood? Do we need to know this? And why?
Yes, the King is a public figure but is the purpose to show that he is human and not perfect? Or that he had a point in his marriage where all was not well but they survived it and their union is better now than before the hiccups, or that because of these hiccups the King is just like us, and therefore Sweden doesn't need the monarchy?
I don't get it.
All the papers are screaming how the King admitted cheating his wife and wanted to "move on". What a simplistic interpretation... Let's think for a moment what he actually said. He said he's seen a few headlines and they were not pleasant. He then said he has not read the book, has discussed the book with his family and feels there's nothing to discuss and wants to move on. In any case the events happened a long time ago.
What if the headlines he happened to see are not the most rude ones? I doubt HM has the time to hang around newsstands reading the headlines and probably his staff is not very eager to present him with the worst ones. He might have only seen/heard that the headlines are about him not wanting necessarily to be a monarch (I'm sure he did have other career ambitions in the past, who wouldn't have had) and partying quite a bit when he was young. He might not know specifically what he's accused of (meaning adultery, sex parties etc.). So, what he meant to say was that he did have other dreams (before he grew into his role), party as a young man but those days are gone and there's no need to discuss them anymore. People who are dyslexic often think differently than others which also means that they're not always able to convey their thoughts to others in a way that they would be understood correctly.
I wish all this mud slinging would end soon. I find it particularly amusing that in the Swedish press when they are discussing the matter some people truly do feel that the royal family cannot and should not have any kind of private life. Some even turn this scandal into some sort of feminist issue... I've noticed reading people's comments that many Swedes are very harsh on their royals. I find it weird. If they only knew how much worse it would be if they had a president instead...
Dear Catharina, can you please elaborate a bit more on the second part of your post. I do not understand what you mean. Are you trying to say that the King was not responding in his press conference to the claims of adultery, attending sex parties and having connections with the mafia, which took place in the 80's until the end of the 90's when he was a King and Head of State? (Since 1973)
As response to the last part of your post I would like to comment the following: Try to imagine another head of state of any country (excluding banana-republics, some African states and Berlusconi off course) that has systematically behaved amorally by attending dubious parties hosted by mafia members and having affairs with pop singers. Isn't it normal that people, organisations, and other stakeholders are shocked and that they would like to communicate with each other about these portrayed events surrounding such behaviour? This all has become even more shocking since the King isn't denying anything. If I was a Swedish citizen I would perhaps be slightly embarrassed by this.
Well, technically the King has not admitted or denied any single thing that he has been accused of. Probably because he is not aware of all the specific things they accuse him of. My guess is that the reason they stated earlier that they'd be commenting on this at the press meeting was because the court felt they need to comment on it (due to the new 'open' policy with the press). After that they probably realized they didn't have enough time to properly prepare themselves to answering questions. Denying everything not knowing all the details would have been foolish, so they tried to come up with some kind of comment on the subject.
To answer your question, yes I do think the King was not responding to all the claims since he was not prepared well enough and didn't know the specifics.
How should I express this regarding the last part of my previous post... Every person does right and wrong things in their lives regardless of what is expected of them and what they do for living. Heads of states are no different from anybody else. To think that such behaviour doesn't exist elsewhere than in the places you excluded would be naive. Yes, that might shock people but I feel it's not relevant unless it strongly affects the way a person does his/her work. I haven't read the book so I really cannot comment on any mafia connections (note that you can be considered having a 'mafia connection' even if you only attend a party where one of the attendants is part of the mafia and even if you do not know the person and his/her background) and I really could not care at this point. I don't think the citizens as a whole have anything to be embarrassed about.
Yes, indeed it might not be all too shocking news for us modern citizens. But one should never take certain vows to light-heartedly, especially not from a head of state that has made the following oath:"[...] We shall [...] throughout a legal, just and lenient Reign, seek to by Our utmost ability to advocate the veritable interests and welfare of the Realm and that of each of its inhabitants, [...] We thus confirm this by the written signature of Our name, and by a lively oath, that this We shall adhere to and carry out, so truly help Mine God to life and mind."
Besides this oath, HM The king of Sweden has also vowed, through his marriage vows, to be faithful to his wife. (Sexual faithfulness is not directly addressed in the marriage vow itself, but Christian tradition has accepted that if one is having an extramarital affair, one is guilty of breaking the marriage vow) According to the book The King of Sweden has repeatedly and systematically broken this vow.
If certain narratives mentioned in the book are true it becomes quite worrying that a head of state takes a vow so light-heartedly.
I haven't read the articles mentioned that try to make it a feminist issue, so they mmay have a totally different take on it than me, but I can definitely see it as a women's issue. When a guy behaves like this, to me it's very much a reflection on how he views women. Men who respect women don't act like this. To me it implies that a person sees women, or at least all the women he's slept with, as disposable sex objects.
If they only knew how much worse it would be if they had a president instead...
I am surprised there is such a fuzz about the book. Maybe only for the fact that for the first time somebody has collected all the stories that have been going around for ages and published them?
All the stuff like CG not being confident or even reluctant towards the role, leading a womanizer/playboy lifestyle, driving fast cars etc etc has been well known for many years. He was seen as the idiot in charge with the bossy wife behind him but sometimes things different than they look from the outside. CG doesnt look like the wild man he apparently is and has always been but at the end of the day is no different than many of his counterparts like JC of Spain or Prince Philip, this is a men's world but very discreet and not remotely thinking that the media would ever go public with what most people know anyway.
When I read through the thread I couldnt help but thinking that Carl Philip is not very different from his Dad and gets away with it, its all about fast cars and the company of tacky women.
Read more: How King Carl Gustaf of Sweden enjoyed wild sex parties with strippers | Mail OnlineTo the world at large, King Carl Gustaf of Sweden is the *perfect 21st-century *monarch. A charming man of quiet *dignity, loved by his people as an ordinary family man, his main hobby is Scouting.
His only acknowledgement of a racier world is the stable of fast cars he enjoys driving. As for his 34 years of marriage with Queen *Silvia, this is held up in *libidinous Sweden as a *wonderful example of what *marriage should be.
At least, that’s how it was. But suddenly the 64-year-old King’s bespectacled image of almost dull respectability has undergone a remarkable transformation.