General News about Frederik, Mary and Family 9: May - December 2011

[Lumutqueen]

Originally Posted by EIIR

I stand by my opinion - I don't believe taxpayers should have to pay to cover the protection costs of a bunch of foreigners who fancy a jolly when they can well afford to do it themselves.

If the Australian government has elected to pay for the safety and security of the visiting dignitaries, and the Australian people are content with their governments decision. What's the problem exactly?
It's not like Mary and Frederik have bullied and pushed for security to be provided, they didn't force anyone to protect them. It's not your tax dollars being spent, unless you live in Australia, so I don't see why you're complaining.

[Muhler]

Okay, moving on: Skolepiger fandt Mary på stranden - Kendte - BT.dk

Here is a high resolution pic of Mary and the two girls. A cute pic, eh? (Alas, can't place the third smiley on top of the other two).
You know the drill: click "Se stort billede". then click the square in the lower left corner and voila...

[Rascal]

Originally Posted by UserDane

You capture the very essence of the ongoing 'discussion' and have a gift for always remaining courteous all around.

Agreed, UseDane. Two posts from the same person but with completely different "tone".

Madame Royale, your response to my post was articulate and insightful. The puppy analogy is definitely indicative of this particular argument but while puppies may stop, there will constantly be new members of these forums who may raise the same questions. I doubt we will ever see the end of this discussion...or that we should.

I personally agree with EIIR that it is not "fair" or "right" that money spent for any security or travel arrangements for any royal who is not the reigning head of state should be paid out of their own existing personal funds when making personal trips. But life is not fair and many policies and protocols do not align with what is the right thing to do in many circumstances. Some of those will change, some will not.

[Madame Royale]

Two posts from the same person but with completely different "tone".

Because I did not add an emoticon or beacuse I used the word rediculous in the initial post?

My tone in that post is no different to that in the subsequent posting. And if anyone would know, it would be me

But life is not fair

Yes life is not fair. Children die of cancer, people are persecuted and murdered because of their sexual pursuasion, communities live in war zones, teenagers die in car accidents and babies go hungry...

I think some perspective is required here as to the true meaning of why life is not fair. This disucssion topic hardly qualifies.

Here is a high resolution pic of Mary and the two girls. A cute pic, eh?

It is a lovely photo Muhler.

[MARG]

Originally Posted by EIIR

Just because something is a certain way does not mean that it's right or fair. As we Europeans have seen over the last few days, just because there's a treaty stating something doesn't mean it's not a load of complete rubbish!

Whilst I understand that to which you are referring, others will not and it does not belong on this thread!

Originally Posted by EIIR

I stand by my opinion - I don't believe taxpayers should have to pay to cover the protection costs of a bunch of foreigners who fancy a jolly when they can well afford to do it themselves.

OK. We hear you! It is clear this is a major issue for you and, as it applies to "a bunch of foreigners", it is not Denmark specific but internationally general.

That being the case, it would seem a logical option to start a new thread to expound your theories and see if others wish to engage. Flogging a dead horse on the Danish CP couple's holiday is just getting old!

[charlottestreasures]

I was wondering if anyone knows how Christian and Isabella got to
Australia. One article said Frederick picked them up on his way back
from Vietnam. If that was so, Christian could not have travelled with
his father (heir and spare together is not allowed).

This would also have meant that Mary and the twins were by themselves those fews days while
Frederick was in Vietnam.

[grevinnan]

Foreign dignitaries are of course protected in part by the host country for the simple reason that no foreign security force in most cases have the authority outside their own borders. The security forces can act as "body guards" but not as policemen. It is up to the "dignitaries" to leave the visiting country once they are done with the official business or conduct the extended visit in such a way that the impact on the host country is minimal.

To believe that F and M need any more protection than Queen Margarethe and Prince Henrik in France or King Carl Gustaf and Queen Silvia need on the riviera is actually very strange. European kings and queens vacation regularly all over Europe and protection does not appear to be a major issue.

Perhaps F and M need to plan their vacations with more consideration to the impact on the world around them.

[Madame Royale]

extended visit in such a way that the impact on the host country is minimal.

And indeed it is. Of that there is no doubt.

Perhaps F and M need to plan their vacations with more consideration to the impact on the world around them.

Those assigned for their protection from Denmark are employed to do so and those here in Australia who are assigned to whatever task deemed necessary by our internal law and order agencies are themselves doing what they are payed to do.

The impact of Mary and Frederik spending time here in Australia does not so much as induce the tiniest of ripples. Only here on these forums are you likely to stumble across such considered thought.

[Lady Rosie]

I have to concur. There has been no discussion in Australian media (from what I can find) to suggest a problem in the cost of M&F's private visit. The only place I have heard anyone complain about the impact of the family's time here in Oz is on this very board.

[marfre]

I agree, I have not seen or heard a mention of it either.

Crown Prince Frederik has been at the cricket being played at Bellerieve Oval in Hobart . It is the second day of the second test between Australia and New Zealand. The commentator sid that they had sent someone out to see if they could see if Crown Princess Mary was also there but alas she was not.
My friend rang to say that they saw Frederik and also that he was shown on tv, I missed this.
There was also a short inteview with Frederik on radio.

[Muhler]

According to Billed Bladet Christian and Bella arrived in Australia last weekend, around the time Frederik left for VIetnam.
So they must have flown with a nanny.

Originally Posted by charlottestreasures

I was wondering if anyone knows how Christian and Isabella got to
Australia. One article said Frederick picked them up on his way back
from Vietnam. If that was so, Christian could not have travelled with
his father (heir and spare together is not allowed).

This would also have meant that Mary and the twins were by themselves those fews days while
Frederick was in Vietnam.

[grevinnan]

Originally Posted by Madame Royale

And indeed it is. Of that there is no doubt.



Those assigned for their protection from Denmark are employed to do so and those here in Australia who are assigned to whatever task deemed necessary by our internal law and order agencies are themselves doing what they are payed to do.

The impact of Mary and Frederik spending time here in Australia does not so much as induce the tiniest of ripples. Only here on these f orums are you likely to stumble across such considered thought.

There has been a lengthy discussion here about the security provided by the australian police. If your presence requires such protection while you are on a private vacation than make your visit short.

[American Dane]

Originally Posted by grevinnan

There has been a lengthy discussion here about the security provided by the australian police. If your presence requires such protection while you are on a private vacation than make your visit short.

Here as in the forums or where you live?? Nowhere in the Australian press (TV, papers, etc.) has there been any concern over the protection given to the family. Even those programs that would normally jump on this, haven't ::cough::A Current Affair/Today Tonight::cough:: In fact most probably haven't even noticed.

I think your post is a bit unfair. Why should Mary have to limit her visit to friends and family halfway around the world simply because she is well-known and well-liked in Australia and which may result in unwanted attention?

As mentioned before this protection is no different nor no more than what is received by any other foreign dignitary in Australia, the UK, France, the US, etc. If this is what the Australian government feels is necessary for F+M than I am more than fine with my Australian tax dollars going towards it.

[Madame Royale]

Originally Posted by grevinnan

There has been a lengthy discussion here about the security provided by the australian police. If your presence requires such protection while you are on a private vacation than make your visit short.

There has been a lengthy discussion about Australian protection disucussed by those from far and wide on this forum, infact, it appears to be an issue for those who don't hold, so I'd endeavour to suggest, an Australian passport. Thus I'm intrigued as to why the issue should persist like a thorn in their foot. It's rather bemusing really.

And let 'us' not overplay the role of the provided protection in terms of size. I myself find it particularly amusing that people should, through their indignation, make out as though there is a task force the size of a small army that has been commissioned to watch over Mary and her family.

And well, thankfully the Australian economy is in a considerably strong position in comparison to other global markets at the current time so by all means, fear not for the "burden" on the public purse should that be of concern for it can weather such a "strain" on resources as this. Though it is awfully kind of our global neighbours to care so much about what is considered here to be, such a non issue.

[Erica Lauren]

Just think of all the money that the US spends on dignitaries who come to New York for the UN? Every country helps other nations out when there leaders/dignitaries come for whatever reason. There are a lot of people who would cause harm just for attention or another reason, no nation would want that on their plate. Nations do it for celebrities too. Australia is no different.

[Muhler]

Well, the discussion seems to reached the end of the line, where it is no longer progressing.

The Danish members of this forum seems to have no problems with the issue of M&F being on vacation in Australia, nor is it an issue in the Danish press.
And I see that none of the Australian members appears to have any problems with that either, nor is it an issue in the Australian press as I understand it.

I realise now from reading EIIR and Grevinnan's posts that your point is more general and not directed at M&F. - That of course makes sense as those who have raised the issue is neither from Australia nor from Denmark.
Your point about about taxpayers funding the safety of royals while on vacation is of course valid.
But perhaps it is better to move this discussion to a more general area of this forum, where this issue can be discussed by members from more countries?

There is little point in digging deeper trenches in this thread and getting nowhere, wouldn't you say?
I believe this discussion would be more lively in a general area of the TRF.

[Kataryn]

Originally Posted by grevinnan

There has been a lengthy discussion here about the security provided by the australian police. If your presence requires such protection while you are on a private vacation than make your visit short.

These security people are there anyway - they are employed and trained for exactly that job, so it really doesn't matter who it is they are allocated to protect. Or do we need the discussion whose security is more important? That should be one for the person in charge of the security management.

[Lady Rosie]

Here is a link to an article about F's visit to a cricket match and C&I's play at a local park.

Fred's having a ball Tasmania News - The Mercury - The Voice of Tasmania

[Roskilde]

Originally Posted by Lady Rosie

Here is a link to an article about F's visit to a cricket match and C&I's play at a local park.

Fred's having a ball Tasmania News - The Mercury - The Voice of Tasmania

Thanks for this article and pic.

I have to say that every time, I see Isabella, I smile. She always has the cutest smile on her little lips. She always looks like such a happy, harmonious and fresh little girl.

[nwinther]

Originally Posted by EIIR

I have no issue with providing protection to foreign dignitaries, when they are on official business. When they just fancy a warm mid-winter break, I think it's asking too much to expect other countries to pay to protect them.

That doesn't make any sense. If I'm in australia on vacation, and I feel threatened by someone or have my wallet stolen - will I be able (in your opinion) to contact the Australian police without having to pay for their services?

No matter who you are, if you are legally in a country, that country has an obligation to care for your safety within the country's legislation. If you're there on official business, like M+F were, it's likey to be heavier security than when they're there "unofficially".

Now, it's Tasmanian legislation that makes VIP's get some sort of special treatment. You'll have to take your beef up with the Tasmanian authorities - not the CP couple, nor the Danish tax payers.

If a person is seen to be too much of a burden on a nations security ressources, then the country is free to deny a visa.

Re. diplomats (under which the CP couple fall) there are international agreements that obliges the Australian taxpayer. Guess they'll just have to suck it up.

My advise to you - write a letter to your local MP.