Crown Princess Mary and The Mary Foundation (Launched September 11, 2007)

[soCal girl]

I think Mary has established a very promising foundation in her name. I'm guessing she wanted to start this project and use her influence as Crown Princess to help others. Hopefully she'll be very active with the foundation and not just in name. Yes, she wouldn't be the Crown Princess of Denmark without Frederik but Frederik isn't involved with this project. I don't think the name of the foundation is truly that important, as long as it's not inappropriate.

[highpriestess]

Originally Posted by Marengo

Some examples:

- Prince Bernhard culture foundation
- Queen Emma foundation against tuberculosis
- Queen Fabiola foundation (mentally handicapped)
- Foundation Queen Paola (protection of children)
- Princess Mathilde foundation (weak social groups in society)

And the commonality among all these examples you gave is: The title is part of the name. They got to have their own foundation because of their position.

[Australian]

Originally Posted by highpriestess

Please, you're preaching to a feminist here. I'll agree that Mary should use her name if she puts up HER OWN money to do good deeds. That's not the case here, is it? She's using her position as the crown princess of Denmark to raise funds in order to do good deeds. The donors are not donating money because of Mary Donaldson. They're donating money because of her title and her marriage to Fred. She's by no means an independent, self-made woman. It's like Donald Trump's wife starts a charity with only her name.

Fact is, Mary is known to the public, regardless of how she became known. She is known and people recognise her name.
Since when do royals use their own money to do anything anyway? I dont think this whole name thing matters at the end of the day does it? I think it is pretty irrelevant to anything important. Maybe she should just close the foundation and let people accuse her of not doing much or just being fashion oriented. I mean she is doomed either way.

[Chimene]

Would this be a problem if it were a different princess or do we object simply because it's Mary? I'm asking an honest question.

[Xeara]

I think it is a bit of a petty arguement myself...it is called the Mary Foundation because it will be serving an interest and cause close to Mary's heart...just like Fred's foundation is serving the needs of scientific research related to the artic oceans (correct me if I wrong...just what I gathered from a previous post...Mary is interested in people and Fred is interested in the ocean (I actually joked to myself that Fred's fund might help retired sailors...an ulterior motive you could say, when he himself retires )...and their joint foundation is related to arts and culture, probably a cause they are BOTH passionate about...

And I am certain that if this new foundation, dealing with social issues, etc had been called the "Mary and Frederik foundation" people would have been up in arms and said...why is she riding on her husband's coattails, Frederik is not even a board member, can't Mary stand on her own two feet and just establish a foundation in her own name????

She is doomed if she does and doomed if she doesn't...I personally think it is a good move...spreads the love :)

[Madame Royale]

It must be noted that although she is a royal by way of marriage only, it does not curtail her function as a worthy patron or indeed co-founder of any charitable service

[lise]

I don't see the problem with Mary starting her own foundation, Yes shes married well and would still be just be plain old Mary Donaldson if she hadn't but shes got the postition so why not use it to do some good.

[UserDane]

Originally Posted by highpriestess

And the commonality among all these examples you gave is: The title is part of the name. They got to have their own foundation because of their position.

Is that what bothers you? Fret no longer - Mary's title is actually part of the original name TRH The Crown Prince Couple - HRH The Crown Princess of Denmark establishes The Mary Foundation - which says '‘The Mary Foundation – HRH Crown Princess Mary’s Foundation’ – or also known as the Mary Foundation'.

If those active in the work of the foundation have decided to use a shorter and easier name it must be their decision I would say.

Originally Posted by highpriestess

Please, you're preaching to a feminist here. I'll agree that Mary should use her name if she puts up HER OWN money to do good deeds. That's not the case here, is it? She's using her position as the crown princess of Denmark to raise funds in order to do good deeds. The donors are not donating money because of Mary Donaldson. They're donating money because of her title and her marriage to Fred. She's by no means an independent, self-made woman. It's like Donald Trump's wife starts a charity with only her name.

highpriestess, first of all, the initial capital for this foundation was DKK 1.1m - collected from citizens in Greenland and Danmark and given to the bridal couple Frederik and Mary; now, Mary was part of that bridal couple was she not?

You seem to argue that it is wrong for her to use her position as the crown princess of Denmark to raise funds in order to do good deeds - which argument defies any logic when we are talking about royals! Of course she is - what did you expect? What is any royal doing when he or she accepts a patronage - or agrees to open an art event - or anything that might attract media attention? They are using their position as a XXX to do good deeds!
Do you think for example that the Danish Girls' Choir have countess Alexandra as a patron because Alexandra Christina Manley of Hong Kong was such a fascinating person they simply had to enlist her?? Of course not.

If your argument that it is not right for a royal to use his or her position to do good deeds was valid, the outlook is bleak for a lot of institutions, foundations and charities in all the monarchies who benefit from having a royal attracting attention to their cause.

[sandra1]

i love the dress and i think this is one of her favourites dress.

[highpriestess]

Originally Posted by UserDane

highpriestess, first of all, the initial capital for this foundation was DKK 1.1m - collected from citizens in Greenland and Danmark and given to the bridal couple Frederik and Mary; now, Mary was part of that bridal couple was she not?

You seem to argue that it is wrong for her to use her position as the crown princess of Denmark to raise funds in order to do good deeds -

Re-read my post. You're either intentionally tweaking my words or you need to read more carefully.

I said Mary can put her name all over the place if she uses her own money to fund the foundation. It's odd to use ONLY her name while she's using her position to attract donors for the foundation. Where did I object to royals using their position to raise funds for charity causes?

You said the money came from wedding gifts for Fred and Mary. If that's the case, it's even stranger to use only Mary's name. It's a gift for both of them, isn't it? And Danes gave them the gift because of their position. They would not have given to plain Mary Donaldson.

[Xeara]

Highpriestess, maybe you should move on and get over it...what's done is done, it is called the Mary Foundation whether you like it or not...and as for the source of the funds, from Mary and Frederik's wedding gifts, well it is HER money too, what's yours is mine and what's mine is yours...that is a sign of a modern progressive happy partnership, which I think Mary and Frederik's marriage is...

Sounds like like clutching at straws while drinking sour grapes

[Madame Royale]

I said Mary can put her name all over the place if she uses her own money to fund the foundation

A somewhat illogical proposal, considering all royals who ascribe their names to a foundation don't use 'their' money, but that of the state which confers a disposable stipend, or, fiscal contributions from external company's who wish to be involved financially. So, the raison d'être you believe appropriate would ultimately mean that any royal who's name bears pride of place within any charitable organisation has no right to infact assign their name.

You seem to be stuck on the former Mary Donaldson's anonymity and I don't see what that at all has to do with this organisation or the fact that she is now the Crown Princess of Denmark. Infact, it has no bearing at all given she is HRH The Crown Princess.

[UserDane]

Originally Posted by highpriestess

Re-read my post. You're either intentionally tweaking my words or you need to read more carefully.

I said Mary can put her name all over the place if she uses her own money to fund the foundation. It's odd to use ONLY her name while she's using her position to attract donors for the foundation. Where did I object to royals using their position to raise funds for charity causes?

You said the money came from wedding gifts for Fred and Mary. If that's the case, it's even stranger to use only Mary's name. It's a gift for both of them, isn't it? And Danes gave them the gift because of their position. They would not have given to plain Mary Donaldson.

I am neither tweaking your words or need to read more carefully; I made a direct answer to points you have raised.
But I concur with Xeara and Madame Royale; I think you are on a really strange mission here - objecting that Mary uses her position to attract donors for a foundation - while in the same breath claiming that you do not object to royals using their position to raise funds for charity causes. There is no sense in arguing that what is OK for other royals to do is not OK for Mary

[Fashionista100]

Well, this begs the question. Should Royals only marry mulitmillionaires or whose parents can foot the bills? Mary was doing quite well as a single woman. So she wasn't making millions? There are not too many people rich or otherwise who use their own money to set up foundations, with the exception of Bill and Melinda Gates. It is standard to get corporate donations. As for the wedding gift, I'm sure Fred was happy to let her have it. They don't keep score on money. Besides, they made a large donation to Greenland I believe from Rock and Royal, which was to a cause close to Fred's heart.

[hibou]

Well, in reading all the posts, here's my two cents. She could be sitting on her royal bottom and just show up for the meet and greets and the walk abouts. From what I have seen, she has picked some key issues that are very problematic in today's society among children. At this point if she had never married a royal she could have still started her own foundation but we will never know. Yes it is easier to raise money when you have a title. The point of the foundation is what it does, not what it's called. As a woman of a certain age who has had to combat the glass ceiling, I find her interesting. She has found ways to be herself yet maintain an image that defines her position. Let's see how her foundation does over the next few years before we tear her apart. JMO

[norwegianne]

It will be interesting to see how the foundation will work out. Does anyone know how they will find these people who are excluded? Will it be something that people apply for or have their names put up for? Or how does the process work?

[sylla]

It will be interesting to see how the foundation will work out. Does anyone know how they will find these people who are excluded? Will it be something that people apply for or have their names put up for? Or how does the process work?

Yes, and once they are found what exactly will Mary and staff do for them to get them "included"?

[norwegianne]

Ah, I can see from the statutes/press release that this will go through organizations and that people can't apply directly to the foundation for grants. I'll look forward to seeing how it will work, at any rate.

[highpriestess]

Originally Posted by UserDane

I am neither tweaking your words or need to read more carefully; I made a direct answer to points you have raised.
But I concur with Xeara and Madame Royale; I think you are on a really strange mission here - objecting that Mary uses her position to attract donors for a foundation - while in the same breath claiming that you do not object to royals using their position to raise funds for charity causes. There is no sense in arguing that what is OK for other royals to do is not OK for Mary

You've proven you couldn't understand my point. I'm not going to waste my breath explaining for the third time.

[GlitteringTiaras]

Great!

Let's move on shall we.

Thanks.