Crown Princess Mary as Patron of Copenhagen International Fashion Fair (2005-2013)

[Muhler]

Originally Posted by Terri Terri

Thank you Muhler!

Back in August 2014, I posted in the CIFF thread (post #431) that I had received a response from the Danish court in January 2014 that CP Mary was no longer patron of CIFF. So, I think CP Mary had dropped the patronage since late last year.

http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums...-14384-22.html

You are welcome.

Yes, Mary pulled out on 1st October 2013. A little more than a month after it had been revealed that the figures of individual visitors had been "accidentally" inflated.

[Muhler]

A follow up on Mary dropping CIFF.
This is meant to be mostly for those who wish to have a serious insight into what this is all about.

Two articles from Berlingske Business:
Politikere ønsker modeuge kulegravet - Detailhandel | www.business.dk
This about the local politicians in Copenhagen being up in arms after it has come out that CIFF continued to inflate the figures after it was first revealed. CIFF have recieved a very considerable funding from Copenhagen municipality.
Seems like the court lost faith very early on and pulled the plug. - Perhaps a "one-breach-of-trust-and-you're-out-policy"?

The second is more interesting for this forum: Få kongelige protektioner tilbage for dansk erhvervsliv - Økonomi | www.business.dk
It's based on Berlingske's political commentater, Thomas Larsen, who has previously written books about the DRF and his assessment.
It is that the DRF and certainly Mary is withdrawing herself from protections regarding specific parts of Danish commerce and industry, while still very much supporting Danish commerce and export in general. Instead, again Mary in particular, now focus more on having protections in connection with social issues.

- Probably a wise move since there have been some critizism that the DRF is too close with the business sector. Now it will be more difficult accusing the DRF for nepotism.

[ricarda]

As the article you posted states CIFF was actually the only business-related patronage of Mary, the exception rather than the rule. The focus always was on social issues.
And I don't see anything wrong if one member of the RF focuses on one business sector while other members focus on other sectors. It is good though that Mary stepped out if the CIFF management has done something unethical.

But as long as a prince is turned into a millionaire by big business companies (I know, I know, just "best friends") and his wife then opens a new store for one of these companies while officially being on a "social visit" the accusation of nepotism will IMO never be far away.

[redtulip]

Originally Posted by ricarda

As the article you posted states CIFF was actually the only business-related patronage of Mary, the exception rather than the rule. The focus always was on social issues.
And I don't see anything wrong if one member of the RF focuses on one business sector while other members focus on other sectors. It is good though that Mary stepped out if the CIFF management has done something unethical.

But as long as a prince is turned into a millionaire by big business companies (I know, I know, just "best friends") and his wife then opens a new store for one of these companies while officially being on a "social visit" the accusation of nepotism will IMO never be far away.

An interesting post. - I don't understand what the highlighted section is in reference to, could you perhaps explain?

Ole Lyngaard, Sydney, in October 2013, with Mary opening the shop?

If that's what you're referring to, I totally agree. Many eyebrows were raised with that, well, at least with people who took notice of any of it.

I think Mary dropping CFF is a PR move in a bid to get the future queen seemingly less fashion conscious. As for royals being interested in social issues; they must appear to be doing something, really. It's great to be generous and kind when it doesn't cost you a dime, and the press even give you a halo for that!

[Nordic]

Originally Posted by redtulip

An interesting post. - I don't understand what the highlighted section is in reference to, could you perhaps explain?

Prince Joachim selling Schackenborg to rich friends/companies?

[Muhler]

Originally Posted by ricarda

As the article you posted states CIFF was actually the only business-related patronage of Mary, the exception rather than the rule. The focus always was on social issues.
And I don't see anything wrong if one member of the RF focuses on one business sector while other members focus on other sectors. It is good though that Mary stepped out if the CIFF management has done something unethical.

But as long as a prince is turned into a millionaire by big business companies (I know, I know, just "best friends") and his wife then opens a new store for one of these companies while officially being on a "social visit" the accusation of nepotism will IMO never be far away.

You are presumably referring to Joachim and our Marie?
Yes, even being a win-win-deal for all involved, including Joachim's creditors and, not least, employees if was nevertheless critisized.
Either because people think he ought to have gone bankrupt before giving up Schackenborg or didn't bother to have a closer look at the issue. The downside of this is of course that Joachim used his network and thus owe them a favour in return.
But that the DRF, or for that matter most royals, return a favour that's a well-known thing.

Originally Posted by redtulip

Ole Lyngaard, Sydney, in October 2013, with Mary opening the shop?

If that's what you're referring to, I totally agree. Many eyebrows were raised with that, well, at least with people who took notice of any of it.

I think Mary dropping CFF is a PR move in a bid to get the future queen seemingly less fashion conscious. As for royals being interested in social issues; they must appear to be doing something, really. It's great to be generous and kind when it doesn't cost you a dime, and the press even give you a halo for that!

I think you are mistaken here. Mary no longer needs to distance herself from the fashion industry. She has for years proven that she is more than fashion-princess and that she is very much involved in social issues.
There are a number of proir cases of the DRF ditching a protection (that's admitteldy rare) or a business (an by appointment to the Royal Danish Court badge) if that business has been caught doing something unethical. So as far as I see it, this is merely a continuation of that policy.

[ricarda]

Originally Posted by redtulip

Ole Lyngaard, Sydney, in October 2013, with Mary opening the shop?

If that's what you're referring to, I totally agree. Many eyebrows were raised with that, well, at least with people who took notice of any of it.

Did Ole Lyngaard turn Frederik into a millionaire? No.
As others guessed rightly I was referring to Prince Joachim.

To open Danish shops while on a business promotion or bilateral relations tour (or even when one just happens to be there at that time) is absolutely normal.
But IMO it's not good when the work of the royals gets mixed up with their private/financial affairs and I think Joachim & Marie should be very careful in the future.

Muhler
But that the DRF, or for that matter most royals, return a favour that's a well-known thing.

The problem is that this was a very big favour (I don't know of any other favours like this in the DRF or other RFs) and I keep asking myself how big will the return favour be?

[polyesco]

Originally Posted by ricarda

Did Ole Lyngaard turn Frederik into a millionaire? No.
As others guessed rightly I was referring to Prince Joachim.

To open Danish shops while on a business promotion or bilateral relations tour (or even when one just happens to be there at that time) is absolutely normal.
But IMO it's not good when the work of the royals gets mixed up with their private/financial affairs and I think Joachim & Marie should be very careful in the future.

This is what I got too.
You were referring to Joachim and
it was Marie who recently opened a Lego store during her trip to New York (which she did as patron of Autism Org, i think)

[Muhler]

Originally Posted by ricarda

Did Ole Lyngaard turn Frederik into a millionaire? No.
As others guessed rightly I was referring to Prince Joachim.

To open Danish shops while on a business promotion or bilateral relations tour (or even when one just happens to be there at that time) is absolutely normal.
But IMO it's not good when the work of the royals gets mixed up with their private/financial affairs and I think Joachim & Marie should be very careful in the future.

The problem is that this was a very big favour (I don't know of any other favours like this in the DRF or other RFs) and I keep asking myself how big will the return favour be?

Indeed they should and I'm confident they will be careful.

And as long their return favours are on the level of opening a Danish shop abroad once in a while, it will not be seen as a return favour but duty.
The DRF after all routinely promote Danish commerce whenever they are on the move abroad in whatever official capacity and Lego is now the largest company in DK, so the Ministry of Trade/Commerce would have had no objections at all about our Marie opening a Lego store in New York.
And without being a psycic I'll state that high on the Lego wishlist is to have Mary (preferrably with at least one of her children) open a similar store in Australia. And we may very well live to see that happen.

[ricarda]

I'm sure we will see other Lego shops opened by members of the DRF and thanks to your darling Joachim it will from now on always have a touch of nepotism to it.

Anyhow, this was originally about the article claiming that Mary's dropping of CIFF is a sign that the DRF will in the future be less involved with business and that Mary will focus on social issues. And I simply don't agree with that assessment.
1. Mary's focus was always on social issues. CIFF was the only business-related patronage (as the article itself states)
2. There was a concrete reason why she dropped CIFF. It was to distance herself from an unethical conduct, not to avoid the accusation of nepotism.
3. Frederik & Mary have done more business promotion tours in the last years than they ever did before. The involvement with business seems to increase actually, though not necessarily in the form of a patronage.
4. Because of Joachim's affairs the accusation of nepotism is now more justified than it ever was before.

[Nordic]

Originally Posted by ricarda

I'm sure we will see other Lego shops opened by members of the DRF and thanks to your darling Joachim it will from now on always have a touch of nepotism to it.

4. Because of Joachim's affairs the accusation of nepotism is now more justified than it ever was before.

Maybe this is the reason why the court didn't mention anything about opening the LEGO store in NY in the official calendar.

[ricarda]

Originally Posted by Nordic

Maybe this is the reason why the court didn't mention anything about opening the LEGO store in NY in the official calendar.

I don't know who was responsible for this but IMO it was a bad decision.
Because this way Marie's being there looks indeed like a favour and not like a normal and normally announced royal duty.
(As Muhler said Lego is a very important company and actually Marie's first solo visit abroad in 2008 was to distribute Lego toys for charity in Morrocco. And that was announced.)

To me it has something dishonest, just like the announcement that Joachim sells Schackenborg because it is "incompatible with his royal duties".
I don't blame him for selling it, because I think he was very young when he got it and didn't really have a choice (like his brother).
But please no hypocritical announcements or non-announcements!

[Muhler]

Originally Posted by ricarda

I'm sure we will see other Lego shops opened by members of the DRF and thanks to your darling Joachim it will from now on always have a touch of nepotism to it.

Anyhow, this was originally about the article claiming that Mary's dropping of CIFF is a sign that the DRF will in the future be less involved with business and that Mary will focus on social issues. And I simply don't agree with that assessment.
1. Mary's focus was always on social issues. CIFF was the only business-related patronage (as the article itself states)
2. There was a concrete reason why she dropped CIFF. It was to distance herself from an unethical conduct, not to avoid the accusation of nepotism.
3. Frederik & Mary have done more business promotion tours in the last years than they ever did before. The involvement with business seems to increase actually, though not necessarily in the form of a patronage.
4. Because of Joachim's affairs the accusation of nepotism is now more justified than it ever was before.

My darling Joachim?!? You are an unbeliever, Ricarda. But in time you will see the light...

Anyway, to address your points:
1) Mary did get some critisizm initially for focusing too much on fashion and the fashion industy. - Back when she was still inexperienced, still didn't master the language and still wasn't fully versed in Danish politcs, commerce and social issues. She took on the more heavy social issues later on and today she's gone hardcore in that respect.
2) Absolutely. A quick and in my opinion wise decision.
3) They certainly have. So much that I'd say they are now the spearheads of the DRF in that respect. - Certainly in regards to creating awareness and publicity.
4) Wouldn't say that. The spectre of nepotism has been around for many years. Like the Regent Couple's close friendship with the late Mærsk McKinney Møller and especially PH's current friendship with the industrialist Fritz Schur.

Originally Posted by ricarda

I don't know who was responsible for this but IMO it was a bad decision.
Because this way Marie's being there looks indeed like a favour and not like a normal and normally announced royal duty.
(As Muhler said Lego is a very important company and actually Marie's first solo visit abroad in 2008 was to distribute Lego toys for charity in Morrocco. And that was announced.)

To me it has something dishonest, just like the announcement that Joachim sells Schackenborg because it is "incompatible with his royal duties".
I don't blame him for selling it, because I think he was very young when he got it and didn't really have a choice (like his brother).
But please no hypocritical announcements or non-announcements!

We can agree on that one.
We can perhaps hardly blame the DRF for not stating the real reason: A withdrawl for economic reasons, but it might have been more wise if the PR office had not tried to put a spin on that, because no one believed it.
The often almost pathetic attempts to create a positive spin on all issues regardless of anything by mainly politicians, is something royals should stay clear off IMO.

[JessRulz]

As Mary is no longer the patron of CIFF, this thread will be closed. Her attendance at the Designers Nest Awards can be posted in that specific patronage thread, while her attendance at CIFF can be posted in her current events thread.