Countess Alexandra's Alimony


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Like I have stated several times, it is not the money. The sum is insignificant. It is the principle, but also the precedence we might be creating. A monarchy so removed from it's people that it simply "bestowes" the financial responsebility for Alexandra on us, is arrogant and out of tune with the times. It is taking advantage of my goddwill and my rspect for the institution to leave the bill with me and my fellow taxpayers. Also, what happens if there is another royal divorce? Will the Dansih taxpayer have to pay for all future ex-royals, not that we have accepted to pay for Alexandra?
I quite agree with Trinnie over here, when reading these posts regarding the financial settlement I got De ja Vu, feeling, it reminded me a book I read about all mistresses of Kings, how they were bestowed favours, (annuities) for their life even if they were out of favour:cool:
 
Why is it "obviously not seen as appropriate"
to work more for charities and who says so?.... and moreover,
working for charities is not a "royal" thing only. A lot of celebrities
do it and Alexandra is still very popular in DK and somewhere between royal and celeb.

No one says so, to the best of my knowledge:)! It's just that in
Denmark the patronages of charities are normally a royal prerogative!

IIRC the money from the state was granted to her back in 2004 not for raising her children but because it was said that she would continue her work with her patronages.

Er..not quite! The cost of the upkeep of the children formed a
substantial part of her allowance; about one third IIRC - and the
allowance of Prince Joachim was reduced accordingly.

IMHO Alexandra hasn't done enough for the money she gets since 2006 (long before she got married again and had to pay taxes and long before Marie appeared on the scene). 20-40 events per year? And no trips for UNICEF anymore?

Alexandra is still a patron of Unicef, more trips may be coming up!
That aside, I for one wonder whether she is expected to phase out
her patronages in due course, now that her successor is in place!

Viv
 
Well, she can keep them for a while I think, her successor still has to learn proper Danish as far as I know. And honestly, Marie is a sweet girl, but I really have problems with her being patron of something or another, God knows what she might say to the press!!
 
Alexandra really is between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, attempting to keep up charity patronages to be seen as earning her annual payment. Then, on the other hand, having to keep low enough on the radar as to not overshadow her royal replacement who, by all accounts, she is at least civil with. I had been under the impression that Alexandra was a popular and very hard working princess. Does nearly a decade of dedicated service to Denmark not earn her a decent "retirement" fund, especially if it will be used in some part to raise 2 of the Queen's 4 grandchildren?
 
You forget that there was apparently a loophole somewhere that allowed Alexandra to get what she got. Wasn't there a big flap about a year ago when they made Mary sign an agreement about what she would be entitled to in case of Divorce?
 
Q Margerethe is a very astute and smart woman. I am sure she made sure Alexandra received what she was entitled to - and no more. There are perhaps lots we don't know about the divorce and reasons behind it that would justify the award. Alexandra is set for life - just like any person (man or woman) marrying into money.
It is the royal house that should take any criticism for the way the money comes to Alexandra - it would seem the royal family could have included it in their allowances and passed it on to her. Q Margerethe had her reasons - she is way too smart to just let something happen.

Agree. Queen Margerethe is a very smart woman. We dont know what happened under the table and nobody knows the real reason why Alex and Joachim divorced. However, I think Queen knows.
Also agree that we shouldnt blame Alexandra for receiving money from the taxpayers. She alone couldnt decide if she is allowed to receive money or not. It was a decision of the government and the Queen.
 
Well... we are not veering of the topic too much as there is a special thread ....

I am in full agreement with views expressed by Jo of Palatine (see posts #104, 111) and by grevinnan (see post #102). Prince Joachim and his first wife divorced in a civil way, but have already moved on with their lives. The main point is that neither Prince Joachim nor then Princess Alexandra “invited” mass media into this painful deeply private procedure. Thus, it is impossible for us to discuss the secret clauses of the divorce agreement. I also agree that the mother-in-law has approved and given an appropriate allowance to the ex daughter-in-law by taking into consideration her “performance” as a member of the Danish Royal family. Furthermore, I dare to presume that Countess Alexandra did not seek an excessive amount as she was highly unlikely to have an access to and spend unlimited sums of money on everything and anything she chose when she was Prince Joachim’s wife.
One of the many challenges that makes divorce so complicated is that even while Countess Alexandra dealing with all the crud of the divorce process itself, she had to think about how she would get on with a new life for herself. As a former member of the Danish Royal family, it would be impossible for her to return back to the business world and effectively perform without leaving the country because of very close scrutiny by various mass media outlets.
 
Well, she has managed to return to the business world at least somewhat as she is on the board of a large pharmaceutical company, and I assume that she receives some compensation for this as well.
 
Let me just put a few things straigth, if I may: The children's upkeep was NOT mentioned in the bill that was passed in the Danish parliament. In the remarks to parliament before the bill was introduced, it merely stated that the annuity was "in order for Princess Alexandra to maintan a lifestyle suitable for a member of the royal family." Secondly, Alexandra could not have turned down her civil list annuity, because she very much needed the money. She has no funds of her own and her family can not help out, because they are not wealthy either!
Naturally, the Queen was informed of all of this and it was with her permission the palace went ahead with the request to parliament for at annuity to Alexandra. In my personal opinion, Queen Margrethe scored an own goal here. She is , as someone said, a smart woman, but the decision to burden the Danish people with Joachim's alimony will come back to haunt the royals!
 
the decision to burden the Danish people with Joachim's alimony will come back to haunt the royals!

Come on - I bet a lot of people are quite happy that this money benefits a lady they like rather than a politician they don't like. It's not as if she received half of the houseld of the State!
 
The way I see it: The Queen is a very smart lady and I am sure the divorce news was a shock to her. Alexandra and Joaquim for whatever reasons they decided to divorce. This was a private affaire and we are neither entitled nor expect to know the reasons why they decided to end their marriage. However, Alexandra represented the Royal Family and she was a great asset to the DRF while she was still a member. When the decision was made to go on with the divorce and finalize the financial arrangements, the DRF should have somehow come up with the funds to finance Alexandra's life. (She "worked" for them not the government)
There were provisions in the prenup for Alexandra and Mary ( I am sure for Marie as well) with regards to the royal jewelry and the royal children. It was made abundantly clear that these belonged to the Crown and the ladies could not remove them from Danemark. Why weren't financial issues resolved within the family??
 
Well, I suspect that the most of the jewels might not belong to the royal family, but to a trust, of which the royal family is the conservator on behalf of the state. But I could be wrong.

The children on the other hand are "children of the state" so to speak, so that is probably something that the government isisted upon.
 
Let me just put a few things straigth, if I may: The children's upkeep was NOT mentioned in the bill that was passed in the Danish parliament. In the remarks to parliament before the bill was introduced, it merely stated that the annuity was "in order for Princess Alexandra to maintan a lifestyle suitable for a member of the royal family."..snipped

Okay then, what money is used when Felix needs a new pair of pants or Nikolai wants an ice cream cone? Does Alexandra have to call Joachim or the Queen and say "The boys need notebooks, send a check please" or "The boys used 50 kroner worth of heat last month". Of course not. It's just not realistic to say that this money was given to Alexandra alone without any thought as to whether or not some of it would be used for the children. If a bill was introduced into parliament to approve the stipend, and there is theoretically so much dissent, why was it not voted down?
 
Well, then the question comes down to who do the boys live with most often?

On another note, most parents have to split the cost of raising their children out of their own pockets, and since Alexandra now has a job, I assume that she has income of her own. They are her children and in essence, she is not having to pay for any of their upkeep. The state is doing that, rather than Joachim paying out child support, so I can see both sides of the argument here. I have to say that I think that she got a pretty amazing deal, what with her yearly allowance, and having her housing provided for her.
 
Well, I suspect that the most of the jewels might not belong to the royal family, but to a trust, of which the royal family is the conservator on behalf of the state. But I could be wrong.

The children on the other hand are "children of the state" so to speak, so that is probably something that the government isisted upon.

Empress I am not sure who owns the Royal Jewels. The Danish Monarchy is the oldest one and I believe that they acquired along the way a lot of jewelry that are their own. Besides there have been pieces handed from Q Ingrid to the GRF or P Benedikte. I remember reading about the issue with the jewelry and the children and they mentioned the children belong to the Crown. I am not remotely familiar with how things work in Danemark and if the Crown and the Government are one and the same. If they are, then Alexandra worked for the government and earned her "pension" so to speak when her career as a princess came to an end.
 
Let me just put a few things straigth, if I may: The children's upkeep was NOT mentioned in the bill that was passed in the Danish parliament. In the remarks to parliament before the bill was introduced, it merely stated that the annuity was "in order for Princess Alexandra to maintan a lifestyle suitable for a member of the royal family." Secondly, Alexandra could not have turned down her civil list annuity, because she very much needed the money. She has no funds of her own and her family can not help out, because they are not wealthy either!
Naturally, the Queen was informed of all of this and it was with her permission the palace went ahead with the request to parliament for at annuity to Alexandra. In my personal opinion, Queen Margrethe scored an own goal here. She is , as someone said, a smart woman, but the decision to burden the Danish people with Joachim's alimony will come back to haunt the royals!
{Edited to remove personal comment- Empress} Who is guilty that Prince Joachim was unable to provide alimony that would "maintain a lifestyle suitable for a member of the royal family" without dragging taxpayer money? Given the fact that you are said to be the royal watcher (I hope I am correct in my assumptions),I am also interested to know how the alimony arrangement would "come back to haunt the royals".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Okay then, what money is used when Felix needs a new pair of pants or Nikolai wants an ice cream cone? Does Alexandra have to call Joachim or the Queen and say "The boys need notebooks, send a check please" or "The boys used 50 kroner worth of heat last month". Of course not. It's just not realistic to say that this money was given to Alexandra alone without any thought as to whether or not some of it would be used for the children. If a bill was introduced into parliament to approve the stipend, and there is theoretically so much dissent, why was it not voted down?

My humble opinion is that they are way above that. There may be charge cards used for certain items where the bill goes to Joaquim or his accountant to settle, which takes care of the boys' expenses.
I remember a divorce of a well known NY billionaire whose soon to be ex was looking for $20,000 a month for her daughter for food and neccessities and his argument was that when the girl visited, he knew she was only eating $8 worth of food every day..............ROTFL.
Hopefully they don't have to discuss these matters.
 
She is entitled to whatever money the divorce agreement gives her. If she is entitled to reimbursements for childrens expenses then she should get it. Joachim and Alexandra (and the Queen most likely) agreed on the terms and for anyone outside of that group to attempt to judge the appropriatness is perhaps useless. I don't think the "state" is paying more by the arrangement. Most likely when the current amounts for the royal house including Joachim is agreed on the money going to Alexandra is included in total allowances. That would be the usual way to compute an expense - irregardless to whom the money is paid.
 
Alexandra apparantly got to keep her diamond drop tiara she received from the Queen, with apparantly other jewels she received from Joachim or bought with her own money during her marriage. The Queens jewels are partly privaely owned, and partly belonging to the state, some which can't leave Denmark. Cp Mary's Ruby Parure belongs to Fredrick, inherited from QIngrid, and can use it for life, or as long as she is married to Freddo, (hopefully forever). It was actually uncanny seing Alex wearing a necklace and earrings, presumable bought by joachim, for her wedding to Martin...
 
Does anyone know how much P Joaquim was receiving when he was married to Alexandra and if any adjustements were made after the divorce? If his allowance was reduced by the amount Alexandra is receiving, grevinnan is right and this is a moot point. If however his allowance remained the same and then increased when he married Marie and Alexandra is still receiving the "alimony" from public funds........I think some have every right to complain.

Alexandra apparantly got to keep her diamond drop tiara she received from the Queen, with apparantly other jewels she received from Joachim or bought with her own money during her marriage. The Queens jewels are partly privaely owned, and partly belonging to the state, some which can't leave Denmark. Cp Mary's Ruby Parure belongs to Fredrick, inherited from QIngrid, and can use it for life, or as long as she is married to Freddo, (hopefully forever). It was actually uncanny seing Alex wearing a necklace and earrings, presumable bought by joachim, for her wedding to Martin...

I did not even notice this since I am not too much into jewelry, but one thing that really struck me as bad taste (sorry Alexandra fans) is that an otherwise astute, mature lady who rarely made any fashion faux pas, showed up for her marriage with Martin in a long wedding gown and a veil. In my view a cocktail dress in ivory or off white would have been in far better taste.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Let me just put a few things straigth, if I may: The children's upkeep was NOT mentioned in the bill that was passed in the Danish parliament.

Sorry Ricarda and Villemann, you're right! I got something mixed up in the
process; the proposal for the bill is here in Danish. It says that in establishing the amount of the annuity, it had been taken
into account that Prince Joachim and Princess Alexandra have agreed on maintenance pay.

Den 22. september 2004 meddelte ministeren for familie- og forbrugeranliggender separationsbevilling til prins Joachim og prinsesse Alexandra.
For at sikre det økonomiske grundlag for, at der kan skabes værdige rammer for prinsesse Alexandras fremtidige virke som medlem af Kongehuset foreslås i henhold til grundlovens § 11 og med virkning fra 1. oktober 2004 fastsat en særlig årpenge til prinsesse Alexandra. Årpengebeløbet er efter drøftelser med Hoffet fastsat på et niveau, som muliggør en opretholdelse af prinsessens repræsentative aktiviteter og en i øvrigt standsmæssig livsførelse. Der er ved fastsættelsen af beløbet bl.a. taget højde for, at det mellem prins Joachim og prinsesse Alexandra er aftalt, at der ydes børnebidrag, og at prinsessen får overdraget en ubehæftet, standsmæssig bolig.
Henset til det forhold, at prins Joachims årpengebeløb oprindeligt blev fastsat med henblik på at dække udgifter til øgede repræsentative opgaver som følge af ægteskabet med prinsesse Alexandra, foreslås også, at der samtidig med fastsættelsen af en særlig årpenge til prinsesse Alexandra sker en tilpasning af prins Joachims årpengebeløb.
Idet jeg henviser til de bemærkninger, der ledsager forslaget, skal jeg tillade mig at anbefale det til Folketingets velvillige behandling.

Viv

P.S. as of March 3rd 2007, when Alexandra married Martin Jørgensen,
the said amount is no longer a royal " annuity" (not subject to tax and vat) but a "special grant".
 
....one thing that really struck me as bad taste (sorry Alexandra fans) is that an otherwise astute, mature lady who rarely made any fashion faux pas, showed up for her marriage with Martin in a long wedding gown and a veil. In my view a cocktail dress in ivory or off white would have been in far better taste.

Mutton dressed as lamb springs to mind! :D

Generally speaking, the Danish media were kind to Alexandra as a bride
version 2.0! It looked like a self imposed censorship ...

Viv

Does anyone know how much P Joaquim was receiving when he was married to Alexandra and if any adjustements were made after the divorce?

With (retroactive) effect from October 1st 2004 the annuity of Prince Joachim was reduced from 2.258 000 to 1.612 000 kroner.

Viv
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks Viv. there are 646,000 kroner difference. Is this how much was given to Alexandra? Has P Joachim had his allowance increased or has P Marie received an allowance since their wedding?? ( We are getting somewhere......)
 
Royal Grant after Prins Nikolai and Prins Felix reach age 18

Hiya Everyone,

Will Alexandra, Countess of Frederiksborg grant amount be less after Prins Nikolai and Prins Felix reach 18?

Any information would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers,
 
Thanks Viv. there are 646,000 kroner difference. Is this how much was given to Alexandra? Has P Joachim had his allowance increased or has P Marie received an allowance since their wedding?? ( We are getting somewhere......)

Alexandra was granted an annuity of 1.526.000 kroner in "2004-money".
Her state grant amounts to 1.9 million kroner today.

As for Prince Joachim:
Wef. 01.jun.2008 the annuity of Prince Joachim was increased
to 2.258 000 ( the level before his divorce). With index regulations
the annuity amounts to 2.531.000, none of which seem to be
earmarked specifically for Princess Marie.

Viv
 
Last edited:
With all due respect to the DFR I would be upset if that divorce cost me part of the 880,000 krone (2004 money) for Alexandra and now 600,000 krone more to take care of the new household P J set up with Marie.
Hopefully they will all live happily ever after, so we will not have to discuss this again.
BTW is Alexandra receiving a cost of living increase every year? What is the average income of a well paid executive in Danemark?
 
I wonder why Alexandra gets almost as much as Marie and Joachim combined. That hardly seems fair.
 
She actually may be getting alimony and child support...so the total is for her and 2 princes in line to the throne. That would make more sense wouldn't it?
 
Okay then, what money is used when Felix needs a new pair of pants or Nikolai wants an ice cream cone? Does Alexandra have to call Joachim or the Queen and say "The boys need notebooks, send a check please" or "The boys used 50 kroner worth of heat last month". Of course not. It's just not realistic to say that this money was given to Alexandra alone without any thought as to whether or not some of it would be used for the children. If a bill was introduced into parliament to approve the stipend, and there is theoretically so much dissent, why was it not voted down?

It is my understanding that prince Joachim pays child support out of fhis private (but publicly funded) pocket. The bill was not voted down because what the palace wants, the palace gets. Unfortunately our elected representatives were having a major snooze and just voted without thinking through the ramifications of this particular bill. :flowers:

She actually may be getting alimony and child support...so the total is for her and 2 princes in line to the throne. That would make more sense wouldn't it?

Why could the money not have been allocated directly to the boys with someone independent overseeing that the allowance was used for the two numbers in the succession and not the upkeep of their mum's luxurious existence?:flowers:

Come on - I bet a lot of people are quite happy that this money benefits a lady they like rather than a politician they don't like. It's not as if she received half of the houseld of the State!

It is not the money. The sum is insignificant. It is the principle. Alexandra's annuity or "special allowance," as it is now called, was a unwise move by the Queen. In time, I believe, this decision will fall back on the royal house as a sledgehammer, because people will not tolerate it.:flowers:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
And what a sledgehammer that wil be:rolleyes::rolleyes: 400.000 euro's divided over 5.5 million Danish people. It's hardly worth mentioning.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom