Crown Princess Mary, Current Events 5: September 2005 - May 2006

[carlota]

Originally Posted by Larzen

I agree she did not get payed, I do not agree she did not pose for Austrailian Womans Weekly, yes the pictures were taken by Steen Evald that also does their official pictures, but it says on the pictures on his website that he took them for Austrailian Womans weekly.
http://www.steenevald.com/slideshow/...enu_id=13&id=7
Pic 8-11 under Royal

That is no different than Reagon Cameron taking the pictures for vogue and Rankin taking the pictures for Dansk, just this time it was a danish photogrpher.

Both the Vogue, Dansk and AWW pictures and interviews were then sold to magazines all over europe as it happen with almost all royal interviews.

i didn't really understand. do you think she didn't get paid at all or that she got paid but the money went someone else (charities or associations)?
what about the other publications appart from womens weekly (vogue and dansk)? i guess she didn't get money from the dansk one as it's from denmark itself, and she posed as patron of the foundation, but what about the others?

[Layla1971]

Originally Posted by carlota

i didn't really understand. do you think she didn't get paid at all or that she got paid but the money went someone else (charities or associations)?
what about the other publications appart from womens weekly (vogue and dansk)? i guess she didn't get money from the dansk one as it's from denmark itself, and she posed as patron of the foundation, but what about the others?

I think what was meant, was that the photographer took the pictures to be sold to whatever newspapers, magazines, ect that wanted to buy them. She was paid for the interviews but the money went to charities.

[ysbel]

Do we know if she actually did get paid for the interviews and photo shoots?

Also carlota, what current actions of Princess Mary make you think she is seeking attention? I'm not talking about the Starmakers course or anything she did before her marriage. I would be interested in what you think she is doing now to seek attention.

[Layla1971]

Originally Posted by ysbel

Do we know if she actually did get paid for the interviews and photo shoots?

She has her own photographer take the photos, not one from the magazine. And, I don't think the photos and interviews would be given away for free.

[ysbel]

Well is it usual for royals to get paid for interviews and photos they release to the magazines?

If so, it doesn't make sense to me. The magazines of course get a cover shoot and an article to help sell the magazine but the Royal family gets added exposure out of the arrangement even if they don't get paid.

If they're already getting something out of the arrangement without getting paid, it seems unnecessary to expect to get money too.

Another question: If the royal photographer took the photos and the Royal Family paid him, who gets to keep the rights of the photos? The magazines or the royal family?

I would think the royal family would. In that case, it makes even less sense for the magazines to pay for a royal photo shoot.

But I don't know a lot how the DRF relationship to the press works.

[Layla1971]

Originally Posted by ysbel

Well is it usual for royals to get paid for interviews and photos they release to the magazines?

If so, it doesn't make sense to me. The magazines of course get a cover shoot and an article to help sell the magazine but the Royal family gets added exposure out of the arrangement even if they don't get paid.

If they're already getting something out of the arrangement without getting paid, it seems unnecessary to expect to get money too.

Another question: If the royal photographer took the photos and the Royal Family paid him, who gets to keep the rights of the photos? The magazines or the royal family?

I would think the royal family would. In that case, it makes even less sense for the magazines to pay for a royal photo shoot.

But I don't know a lot how the DRF relationship to the press works.

I think the pics are bought by the family, but I'm not sure, I'm just assuming. But, it's a logical assumption.

I know the photographers get credit for their work, so maybe the pics are bought by the DRF but the credit (and copyright) remains with the photographer? I know on the website credit is given to all photographers that took the pics displayed on the site.

[carlota]

Originally Posted by ysbel

Do we know if she actually did get paid for the interviews and photo shoots?

Also carlota, what current actions of Princess Mary make you think she is seeking attention? I'm not talking about the Starmakers course or anything she did before her marriage. I would be interested in what you think she is doing now to seek attention.

not many princesses posed for magazines (2 of 3 where foreign) just some months after marrying to their princes. moreover, i think the starmakers course says a lot about mary's personality... after all, why else would somebody want to do such course if they don't want to be a celebrity/famous person?
but again, this is just my opinion... some may agree, some may not...

[Layla1971]

Originally Posted by carlota

not many princesses posed for magazines (2 of 3 where foreign) just some months after marrying to their princes. moreover, i think the starmakers course says a lot about mary's personality... after all, why else would somebody want to do such course if they don't want to be a celebrity/famous person?
but again, this is just my opinion... some may agree, some may not...

I've had voice lessons and taken deportment classes to improve myself, IMO it's just liked educating yourself in any other way - like in school learning math, it prepares you for your life because much depends on appearances.
And I don't want to be a celebrity or famous in any way. But, it is your opinion and I respect your perspective on this.

[carlota]

Originally Posted by Layla1971

I've had voice lessons and taken deportment classes to improve myself, IMO it's just liked educating yourself in any other way - like in school learning math, it prepares you for your life because
And I don't want to be a celebrity or famous in any way. But, it is your opinion and I respect your perspective on this.

i don't mean it that way, layla. let's agree that it's normal and many people practise sports or attend choirs but not many people attend star-makers courses and the stereotype of those different people are not the same ones.

[Larzen]

Originally Posted by carlota

i didn't really understand. do you think she didn't get paid at all or that she got paid but the money went someone else (charities or associations)?
what about the other publications appart from womens weekly (vogue and dansk)? i guess she didn't get money from the dansk one as it's from denmark itself, and she posed as patron of the foundation, but what about the others

No I dont think she got any money at all, royals does not sell them selves to magazine like attention seeking actors and actresses. The pictures are owned either by the photographer or by the magazine, depending on the deal beween the magazine and photographer and it is up to the to which other magaziens and papers publish them.

This was not a charety interveiw/photoshoot as it says nothing about it in the credits or in the interviews, had it been I think the court would have stressed it when they were asked by BT.dk why she did does magazines. The reason given were that Austrailian media had not gotten any interveiws before the wedding and got some before the trip to Oz, and the interview in Dansk was related to her work as patron on CIFF.

Sometimes however there are other things like charity photoshoots, Märtha Louise and Rania did one of those for UNICEF with their children. The sales of the pictures to publications across Europe went to UNICEF and I think also the photographer donated their work (I will check later). This was however very evident in the interviews what the purpose was. VG published two of the pictures of Märtha and they wrote that by doing so they payed a certian sum money to UNICEF.

[carlota]

but along with the photos there were interviews. i guess that mary, as any other famous person, should have got money, or any other kind of incentive for this, as it wasn't an interview about her job as patron, but she talked about her meeting frederik and their love story. in other forum i read this money was donated to charity...

(am i asking the same thing again and again...? :) )

[Larzen]

Maybe you could give the link to the article that said she 1. got money and 2. gave it to charity. That would make it easier to see if its from a credible source.

I have never heared about Royals getting payed to appear in magazine (except for the Duchess of York) They do it either to promote a good cause, or less noble, promote them selves.

she does not talk about meeting Frederik, in the Dansk interview, but about fashion and design

[carlota]

Originally Posted by Larzen

Maybe you could give the link to the article that said she 1. got money and 2. gave it to charity. That would make it easier to see if its from a credible source.

I have never heared about Royals getting payed to appear in magazine (except for the Duchess of York) They do it either to promote a good cause, or less noble, promote them selves.

she does not talk about meeting Frederik, in the Dansk interview, but about fashion and design

actually, there's no article. a poster just said it and i wanted to know if it was true, so i asked it here just to see if any of you guys, knew something about it.

so, normally royals don't get money for appearing in magazines?

[Layla1971]

I suppose it's logical really. The magazine gets it's star cover and the royals get publicity - it's a win-win situation. The photographer gets paid by the court and then, (unless it's for charity, neither side needs to be paid), they are 'paid' in other ways. The magazine has increased sales and the royal/s in question become more known.

[Margrethe II]

I dont know where some contributers come up with groundless notions that the Crown Princess is an attention seeker...jealousy maybe???

"MII"

[carlota]

Originally Posted by Margrethe II

I dont know where some contributers come up with groundless notions that the Crown Princess is an attention seeker...jealousy maybe???

"MII"

why falling everytime in the statement of the jealousy? aren't there more interesting ones? can't it just be a personal opinion of her?
alexandria once said in a thread in the jordan house "Just because someone does not like a particular royal person does not mean they are jealous. They may have their own reasons for not liking someone and I think jealousy is frankly, a cheap excuse to explain detractors. "
i really agree on that... seems the same argument is in every single thread when someone sees that someone else doesn't like the same person he/she likes...

[Layla1971]

Originally Posted by carlota

why falling everytime in the statement of the jealousy? aren't there more interesting ones? can't it just be a personal opinion of her?
alexandria once said in a thread in the jordan house "Just because someone does not like a particular royal person does not mean they are jealous. They may have their own reasons for not liking someone and I think jealousy is frankly, a cheap excuse to explain detractors. "
i really agree on that... seems the same argument is in every single thread when someone sees that someone else doesn't like the same person he/she likes...

I have the opinion that CP Mary doesn't seek attention, but we must respect Carlota's right to have her own opinion even if that opinion clashes with ours.
We all have a different take on a situation, even though it's a much smaller example, you may like an outfit and maybe I don't. It's all about perspective and perception. We're all different and that's ok.

[sara1981]

Princess's relative in court on rape charge
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/...026500848.html

[Margrethe II]

I think it should be said that the relative is only a relative by marriage and not by blood (her cousins husband).

"MII"

[Little_star]

"I think it should be said that the relative is only a relative by marriage and not by blood (her cousins husband)."

It says that in the first line of the article.