Amalienborg Palace, Copenhagen


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Agreed, we won't tell them what to do with their home, we're here to express our thoughts for anyone that might be interested in reading them. For me, bad taste has its limits. I appreciate modern art in the right environment, but this poor building reminds me more of Elvis Presley's Graceland than of what it used to be. Were I QM, I would have a word or five with my son and daughter-inlaw about this.
 
Queen Margrethe has the common sense not to tell her adult son and daughter-in-law how to decorate their own home.
 
And one has to be more than ordinarily naive to think that Frederik and Mary had a free say in the restauration of this magnificient palace with is now fortunately back to former glory with a concurrent update. As stated in several posts above, the palace is supervised by the Palaces and Property Agency and funding comes from the ministry of finance. It's not like anyone from the royal family could just have a strange idea about one of the properties administered by the Places and Property Agency and just do what he or she likes :p

Talking about the queen 'having a word' about the result with her son and DIL is only good for one thing in this connection - a good laugh :ROFLMAO:
 
how big are each of the palaces in square feet? i assume they're all identical in sizes. does the one being renovated have elevators? i ask weird questions don't i?
 
Yes, I believe there are 'lifts' in the newly renovated Palais.
 
At least the Vanity Fair shoot had a point (albeit a weak one), an issue about introducing European royalty, with all important young European royals in it. Still, many pictures were frightfully pompous and again, in many cases it seemed as if they were just dressing up to be in a theatrical performance too.

What was the point of this shoot? The only awnser I read in this thread was that they did it for fun or because they liked it. Considering that being royal is their 'job' I do hope they will give their activities some more thought and I stick to my point that glossy pictures like these, be it by Mary, Máxima, Charlene, Diana or any other royal do not do a monarchy any favours at all. It only helps to show the irrelevance of it, as they portray the royals as nothing more than an expensive version of the Beckhams.

Well said Marengo, I agree with all you have said in this threat.

Furthermore, the fact that they run out of money to decorate the renovated palace(extra money that will come from the Danish tax-payers) should have made them less "flashy" . This pictures represent the opposite of royals concerned about over-spending.

I don't remember the Vanity Fair spread, does anyone have a link? :flowers:
 
Furthermore, the fact that they run out of money to decorate the renovated palace(extra money that will come from the Danish tax-payers) should have made them less "flashy" . This pictures represent the opposite of royals concerned about over-spending.

Please recheck your facts.

M&F haven't run out of money. The decorations were paid for by a foundation. The palais was renovated by the state, because it belongs to the state.
M&F furnish the palais themselves, - over time.

There has been no talk of the state paying for the furnishing.
 
Because once the individual royal houses have received their grants from the state (tax payers) I don't see how we, the taxpayers, can claim that we are entitled to know how, when and where and for what purposes they spend their money. As long as the royals fulfil their part of the bargain - for Queen Margrethe that is for example to use most of her grant to maintain the castles she has a right of occupation to - this is it! If one royal house decide to use some of their funds for travelling, another on using a day or two on a photo shoot (probably no money involved), a third on something quite different - this is just not our business and we should keep our noses out of their private money matters.

Claiming that a day of a photo shoot must upset the tax payers is downright silly IMO. People really need to get this tax payer thing into perspective. How the tax payer even got into this discussion about a photo shoot still beats me :ohmy:

I have noticed that is often people who do not live in monarchies who are extremely focused on 'the hard-suffering tax payers' in monarchies. I don't for one moment believe that a presidency would be cheaper for the tax payers. It's OK to have the origin of the money of individual royal houses in mind, but some really need to get some perspective into it. It's not like the royals are the tax payers' financial hostages.

{edit}
As for the Queen using her portion on maintenance of the castles, this is not accurate, the 'Palaces and Properties Agency' covers that About us - Palaces and Properties Agency

{edit}

Thanks for your answer!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
As for the Queen using her portion on maintenance of the castles, this is not accurate, the 'Palaces and Properties Agency' covers that About us - Palaces and Properties Agency

It's accurate all right. The royal family has to pay for interior maintenance, the Palaces and Properties Agency for exterior maintenance.

And your point of view is fine by me; we can definitely agree to disagree :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's accurate all right. The royal family has to pay for interior maintenance, the Palaces and Properties Agency for exterior maintenance.


And your point of view is fine by me; we can definitely agree to disagree :)

The family most definitely did not pay for the interior of the Crown Prince Couples newly renovated palace.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Anyway, M&F pay for the furnishing and daily maintanaince and expences of the homes they live in.

I.e. paint jobs, general service, electricity, heating, cleaning, accomodation for staff (it's also a workplace) and son on.
The state pay for exterior maintanaince and major repairs.

M&F can be compared to tenants.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The family most definitely did not pay for the interior of the Crown Prince Couples newly renovated palace.

Where did you get the information that the didn't pay for the interior?
 
Where did you get the information that the didn't pay for the interior?

Well, i don't know either if they paid it or not. But in any case it was with money they get from taxpayers (or allowance they get every years for their maintenance).
And, i remember i have read on BT i think, and some danish newspaper's that the crown prince couple didn´t or don´t have money (or budget) to the furniture.
 
Well, i don't know either if they paid it or not. But in any case it was with money they get from taxpayers (or allowance they get every years for their maintenance).
And, i remember i have read on BT i think, and some danish newspaper's that the crown prince couple didn´t or don´t have money (or budget) to the furniture.

Ah, I see.
The apanage is used to cover their expenses, i.e. salaries, administration of the court and so on.
The surplus which they can use to whatever they want. Including furnitures.

BT, a tabloid, is not the most reliable source of info. The reporters dealing with royalty, tend to go for headlines before facts.

I think you refer to the fact that M&F at present don't have that many suitable furnitures for their new home.
The majority of the furnitures they do have are of course in use in Kancellihuset and most of these furnitures will most likely stay there.

The furnitures that were in place in the palais before the renovation, was to put it blunty, mostly old rubbish. As the furnitures worth using had long since been divided in the family when Queen Ingrid died.

Unfortunately they can't plunder the other palaces for furnitures. They do after all belong to the QMII and PH.

So, with a few exceptions, M&F will have to start from scratch. Over the years M&F are going to buy, get as presents and borrow furnitures to be used in their new home.

Once M&F become the regent couple things will naturally change, they'll have more means at their disposal and they will inherit a large number of furnitures. (There is after all a limit to how many furnitures Joachim can use at Schackenborg). - But it's hardly something they plan for, as QMII will hopefully live for some years more.
 
Ah, I see.
The apanage is used to cover their expenses, i.e. salaries, administration of the court and so on.
The surplus which they can use to whatever they want. Including furnitures.

BT, a tabloid, is not the most reliable source of info. The reporters dealing with royalty, tend to go for headlines before facts.

I think you refer to the fact that M&F at present don't have that many suitable furnitures for their new home.
The majority of the furnitures they do have are of course in use in Kancellihuset and most of these furnitures will most likely stay there.

The furnitures that were in place in the palais before the renovation, was to put it blunty, mostly old rubbish. As the furnitures worth using had long since been divided in the family when Queen Ingrid died.

Unfortunately they can't plunder the other palaces for furnitures. They do after all belong to the QMII and PH.

So, with a few exceptions, M&F will have to start from scratch. Over the years M&F are going to buy, get as presents and borrow furnitures to be used in their new home.

Once M&F become the regent couple things will naturally change, they'll have more means at their disposal and they will inherit a large number of furnitures. (There is after all a limit to how many furnitures Joachim can use at Schackenborg). - But it's hardly something they plan for, as QMII will hopefully live for some years more.


Garden, and artwork, courtesy of Realdania, and the cost 22 million kroner:


Frederik VIII


The 'Palace & Property Agency' were the builders responsible for the project, cost 163,5 million kroner, in other words, the tax payers, over and above the annual apanage, this is common knowledge, and a fact.


('163,5 millioner har den aktuelle ombygning af Frederik VIII’s Palæ kostet os' from this link:
Det kongelige guldbur er fremragende renoveret - iBYEN.dk )


How do you know that 'most of the furnitures were mostly old rubbish'? Someone else didn't seem to think so, since they are now being restored, very carefully, to be used by the family, and as for 'plundering' other palaces, they have actually done precisely that, much of it has come from some other palaces. Billed Bladet ( I understand you have little faith in them...) have an article on the subject of the furniture this week. (No. 50 December 16th)
 
Last edited:
How do you know that 'most of the furnitures were mostly old rubbish'? Someone else did'nt seem to think so, since they are now being restored, very carefully, to be used by the family, and as for 'plundering' other palaces, they have actually done precisely that, much of it has come from some other palaces. Billed Bladet ( I understand you have little faith in them...) have an article on the subject of the furniture this week. (No. 50 December 16th)

But the remaining furniture was old and unusable, wasn't it? Wouldn't that be the reason it is being carefully restored for them to use?
 
Garden, and artwork, courtesy of Realdania, and the cost 22 million kroner:


Frederik VIII


The 'Palace & Property Agency' were the builders responsible for the project, cost 163,5 million kroner, in other words, the tax payers, over and above the annual apanage, this is common knowledge, and a fact.


('163,5 millioner har den aktuelle ombygning af Frederik VIII’s Palæ kostet os' from this link:
Det kongelige guldbur er fremragende renoveret - iBYEN.dk )


How do you know that 'most of the furnitures were mostly old rubbish'? Someone else didn't seem to think so, since they are now being restored, very carefully, to be used by the family, and as for 'plundering' other palaces, they have actually done precisely that, much of it has come from some other palaces. Billed Bladet ( I understand you have little faith in them...) have an article on the subject of the furniture this week. (No. 50 December 16th)

The article you refer to above is from a republican paper.
The renovation was of course the responisibility of Slots & Ejendomsstyrelsen, the government department dealing with state property, because the building belongs to the state.
That is evident from the article you posted.
The 163 million DKK is what the state paid for the project, again, it's says so in the article.
Did I say anything else?
I believe I stated in a previous post that the state pay for exterior maintanaince and major renovations. The state is not paying for furnishing the palais. And with furnishing I mean furnitures. (A pretty expensive investment).

Apart from that a foundation also subsidiced the artwork. I cannot remember the name off hand, but you can easily find the details.

As for the old furnitures being less than useful (old rubbish), that has been mentioned in at least one article I read somewhere. I cannot remember off hand if it was also mentioned in a documentary about the renovation. I will do a search if you insist.

As for Billed Bladet #50. I have it right here. There is no article on the subject of furnitures. There are in total 8 pages with M&F, but no furnitures.
There was an article last week, #49. Which I also have right here. It's titled: Mary står for flytningen - Mary is in charge of moving. (I wrote a summary last week).
There are no details about any furnitures in that article... Only that Mary is busy being in charge of moving in.

Nor were there any details regarding furnitures in week #48....
 
The article you refer to above is from a republican paper.
The renovation was of course the responisibility of Slots & Ejendomsstyrelsen, the government department dealing with state property, because the building belongs to the state.
That is evident from the article you posted.
The 163 million DKK is what the state paid for the project, again, it's says so in the article.
Did I say anything else?
I believe I stated in a previous post that the state pay for exterior maintanaince and major renovations. The state is not paying for furnishing the palais. And with furnishing I mean furnitures. (A pretty expensive investment).

Apart from that a foundation also subsidiced the artwork. I cannot remember the name off hand, but you can easily find the details.

As for the old furnitures being less than useful (old rubbish), that has been mentioned in at least one article I read somewhere. I cannot remember off hand if it was also mentioned in a documentary about the renovation. I will do a search if you insist.

As for Billed Bladet #50. I have it right here. There is no article on the subject of furnitures. There are in total 8 pages with M&F, but no furnitures.
There was an article last week, #49. Which I also have right here. It's titled: Mary står for flytningen - Mary is in charge of moving. (I wrote a summary last week).
There are no details about any furnitures in that article... Only that Mary is busy being in charge of moving in.

Nor were there any details regarding furnitures in week #48....



Does it alter a fact if it's from a republican newspaper? - facts are facts.

If you read my post you will see that I posted a link to the fund that paid for the artwork, it's the first sentence...(post 188)

With reference to Billed Bladet, and the article on the furniture, you can find it on page 54 and 55, you missed the bit about the Artwork, so maybe you missed that too.
 
The 'Palace & Property Agency' were the builders responsible for the project, cost 163,5 million kroner, in other words, the tax payers, over and above the annual apanage, this is common knowledge, and a fact.


('163,5 millioner har den aktuelle ombygning af Frederik VIII’s Palæ kostet os' from this link:
Det kongelige guldbur er fremragende renoveret - iBYEN.dk )

And it would have cost the same amount if the palace wouldn't be used by the CP-Couple, as it hasn't been restored since the time that King Frederik and Queen Ingrid moved into it.
By the way, noone ever claimed, that M&F paid for the exterior. Why should they, as the palaces belong to the state?

Apart from that a foundation also subsidiced the artwork. I cannot remember the name off hand, but you can easily find the details.

Realdania :)
 
Last edited:
And it would have cost the same amount if the palace wouldn't be used by the CP-Couple, as it hasn't been restored since the time that King Frederik and Queen Ingrid moved into it.
By the way, noone ever claimed, that M&F paid for the exterior. Why should they, as the palaces belong to the state?



Yes, you're right, the price would probably be the same, the occupants names would be irrelevant.

I don't recollect saying anything about anyone 'claiming' anything about the exterior....lost me there! I just quoted the price, and who paid for it.
 
Does it alter a fact if it's from a republican newspaper? - facts are facts.

If you read my post you will see that I posted a link to the fund that paid for the artwork, it's the first sentence...(post 188)

With reference to Billed Bladet, and the article on the furniture, you can find it on page 54 and 55, you missed the bit about the Artwork, so maybe you missed that too.

Fair enough, I stand corrected. I'll write a summary and post it later on.
Interesting article, I must have been sleeping.

However, the furnitures that are being renovated (incidentally by carpenters employed by the DRF), are the furnitures they have at disposal, whether they come from a depot somewhere or whether they are a part of the furnitures left over from Queen Ingrid. I maintain, that most of these were old and beyond repair or no longer modern, according to the info I have.

As for the article you posted. That was an info. Politiken is a republican paper and the sentiments expressed by the author were pretty republican.

But I don't get you meaning.
The renovation of the palais was paid for by the state, because the building belongs to the state, right?
The building, including paintwork and ceillings were brought back to the style it had in the 1830's. That was the whole idea of the project, right?
The artworks are an integral part of the building and as such belongs to the state, correct?
Exterior maintanaince of the building is the responsibility of the state, right?
Interior maintanaince of the building, woodwork, walls, ceiling and general wear and tear, is the responsibility of M&F, right?
Purchasing and/or renovation of furnitures are paid for by the CP-Couple/DRF, right?
The state does not pay for furnitures to the new palais, right?

Ergo, the taxpayers/state does not pay for furnishing M&F's new home, right?

If the DRF use a part of their apanage to renovate and purchase furnitures and that is an argument for the taxpayers paying for their furnitures, then my employer has paid for my house and our furnitures, and our car. - That is of course nonsense.
You can compare the DRF to public employees and their apanage to their wages. What people do with their salary once their expences have been paid is really nobodys business. Royals or not.
 
Where did you get the information that the didn't pay for the interior?

Doesn't the palace belong to the state? They wouldn't be responsible for upkeep or repairs, or the fabric of the building - only the furnishings ... the state has to pay to upkeep its own building! Frederik is allowed a form of tenancy as a royal - but has no particular rights, and not ownership, isn't that the case?
 
Doesn't the palace belong to the state? They wouldn't be responsible for upkeep or repairs, or the fabric of the building - only the furnishings ... the state has to pay to upkeep its own building! Frederik is allowed a form of tenancy as a royal - but has no particular rights, and not ownership, isn't that the case?

Absolutely.

Amalienborg belongs to the state.
Should the monarchy be abolished tomorrow, the DRF can only take their privatelly owned furnitures, privately owned artworks and other personal belongins with them.
Apart from their private apartments, the DRF are in principle hardly allowed to do anything more than very minor alterations, without approval by the state.

Only Chateau Cayz and Marselisborg Manor belongs to the DRF.
 
Absolutely.

Amalienborg belongs to the state.
Should the monarchy be abolished tomorrow, the DRF can only take their privatelly owned furnitures, privately owned artworks and other personal belongins with them.
Apart from their private apartments, the DRF are in principle hardly allowed to do anything more than very minor alterations, without approval by the state.

Only Chateau Cayz and Marselisborg Manor belongs to the DRF.



And Schackenborg.
 
Fair enough, I stand corrected. I'll write a summary and post it later on.
Interesting article, I must have been sleeping.

However, the furnitures that are being renovated (incidentally by carpenters employed by the DRF), are the furnitures they have at disposal, whether they come from a depot somewhere or whether they are a part of the furnitures left over from Queen Ingrid. I maintain, that most of these were old and beyond repair or no longer modern, according to the info I have.

As for the article you posted. That was an info. Politiken is a republican paper and the sentiments expressed by the author were pretty republican.

But I don't get you meaning.
The renovation of the palais was paid for by the state, because the building belongs to the state, right?
The building, including paintwork and ceillings were brought back to the style it had in the 1830's. That was the whole idea of the project, right?
The artworks are an integral part of the building and as such belongs to the state, correct?
Exterior maintanaince of the building is the responsibility of the state, right?
Interior maintanaince of the building, woodwork, walls, ceiling and general wear and tear, is the responsibility of M&F, right?
Purchasing and/or renovation of furnitures are paid for by the CP-Couple/DRF, right?
The state does not pay for furnitures to the new palais, right?

Ergo, the taxpayers/state does not pay for furnishing M&F's new home, right?

If the DRF use a part of their apanage to renovate and purchase furnitures and that is an argument for the taxpayers paying for their furnitures, then my employer has paid for my house and our furnitures, and our car. - That is of course nonsense.
You can compare the DRF to public employees and their apanage to their wages. What people do with their salary once their expences have been paid is really nobodys business. Royals or not.



I did not remark about the 'republican' comments from Politiken, it was a reference to the expenditure, and I am sure the same information regarding the economics can be found in any other Danish newspapers archives if you care to look.


The subsequent interrogative content of your post is a conundrum.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I did not remark about the 'republican' comments from Politiken, it was a reference to the expenditure, and I am sure the same information regarding the economics can be found in any other Danish newspapers archives if you care to look.


The subsequent interrogative content of your post is a conundrum.

Oh, I was merely trying to figure out what your point is and where we are in agreement and where we disagree.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Summary of article in Billed Bladet #50, 2010.
Kongelige snedkere - Royal carpenters.
Written by Trine Larsen. (Who usually deal with Joachim and Alexandra).
http://www.billedbladet.dk/Kongelige/ArticleFolder/2010/12/BILLED-BLADET%20besogte%20de%20kongelige%20snedkere.aspx

Trine Larsen went to the DRF carpenters shop, where carpenters John Bøge, Finn Johansen and the apprentise Christian Heltoft are busy restoring a number of old furnitures to be used at M&F's new home in Frederik VIII's Palais.

A number of furnitures have been selected from the collection of appropriate furnitures from other palaces (and depots I presume). Before being put to use in the renovated palais they go trhough a make-over at the carpenters shop.
The hand-picked carpenters don't just restore old furnitures, they also make new ones. It is however also a question of whether it's worth it, when they restore furnitures. However, furnitures that have a special significanse to the DRF will in particular be selected for renovation.
At present they are among other things working on a 250 years old cupboard, which has its home at Marselisborg.

Some of the furnitures are very old and fragile and as they are actually used, accidents do happen. Especially chairs are at risk of being damaged, as people either tend to dumb themselves into the chairs or may be a little more heavy now than people were, when the chairs were designed...
Newly made chairs are more... rubust.

Different sorts of tree are of course an issue, when restoring old furnitures and John Bøge explains: "One thing is wear and tear, another thing is when the furnitures have been damage by for instance heat. After the palaces had central heating and the furnitures stand in rooms that are occupied, the wood can work and thus need a helping hand. Or a drawer can suddenly be difficult to pull out and a lock can begin to cause problems. That's why we also have all sorts of wood in store and some of it has been drying for ten - twenty years, so that is just right to be used. We have 250 differen sorts of wood and if we can get away with it, we use wood from the DRF's own gardens, for instance at Fredensborg, Marselisborg or Cayz. The Prince Consort is very careful about gathering rare wood from Cayz. - Because here we can always use old and rare garden-wood, if someone shjould happen to have something lying around".

Finn Johansen summons up his work: "To be here at the (wood)-shop and just work in this house with these furnitures is something every carpenter dreams of".

The shop is located in the Amalienborg palace complex.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom