Four years down the track; Is Mary OK now?

[lisamaria]

Originally Posted by carlota

i would like to point out something about those 'silly' engagements. perhaps i used a wrong word. if the danish royal house considers that mary should go to baptise a ship or a flower, then i think that's perfect: after all, they are the experts. every single engagement has importance to someone and by that reason all of them are important BUT we will all have to agree that not all of them require the same effort, preparation and research.

I think that royals go to all these seemingly pointless things because they are invited to; Mary or Maxima or whoever doesn't simply wake up in the morning and decide it would be the thing to do. Companies and towns and associations use them as publicity tools for themselves; here in Finland many electronics and forest industry companies complain that Sweden has unfair advance of the king and Victoria as they travel a lot to promote Swedish companies and thus promote the national economics.

A princess can of course take an issue and work for it, but we must not forget that royals are expected to a) stay neutral in all issues even remotely political, and b) not to do harm to the diplomatic relationships of their own country. Finding a cause that no one else has taken up yet, and that doesn't violate against those two rules is not that easy. Mary just might be also trying to avoid populism - we shouldn't compare so I won't name names, but seeing a princess wearing tribal headpiece in some African country just reeks of that. It serves no purpose, but looks good. I my eyes she would do thousand times better job by donating money anonymously than by going on a photo session in some exotic location.

Doing all those ship-baptism things has a thing going for them: no one in Africa knows about Mary/Maxima/Mathilde more than what they are told. They hold no meaning to there. But when they meet people of their own, they are expected and wished. Shaking hands with their own princess means a lot to many people, even if it only involves from Mary's side smiling and waving

[ricarda]

Originally Posted by MargreteI

Alexandra did not have to do anything to sustain her self after a divorce. The Prince have to sustain her. It is in the marriage documents.

I did not say that Alexandra has to do anything to sustain herself.
I said she looked for a role (UNICEF) which she could sustain even after her divorce.

Originally Posted by MargreteI

After the divorce was setled it was the parliament who decided to grant her apanage of her own, because of the work she did. However that was not something she could have anticipated under any cirkumstance.

Why could she not have aniticipated this?
IMO she started to build up her image as a humanitarian around the time when her marriage was in trouble.
And the parliament would not have granted her an apanage of her own if she hadn't have that image.
As you said, she got the money because of her work. And she worked most in 2003-2005.

Originally Posted by MargreteI

As for her work, I know some divorced women who also all of a sudden have more time to do what they want to.

That would mean humanitarian work is NOT what she wants.

Originally Posted by MargreteI

Finally patronages are for life or until you leave to another royal. That explain why Mary does not have many yet. It would not be smart to just pick a huge amount of noble causes. The patronages she holds are those she has dedicated her self to, and more is added along the way.

Finally we are back to the topic.
Mary has 20 patronages by now and I think that's quite a lot.
Alexandra has 23 after 11 years.

But I agree with you that one should not only collect patronages but really dedicate oneself to them.

[Little_star]

Originally Posted by Australian

I think Tabbitha knows nobody said she was a joker, it is simply what tabbitha feels after reading this thread most probably, no where did tabbitha said someone said Mary was a joker.It is her observation. And in my opinion, quite accurate.

I think I'll wait for what tabbitha has to say, if she replies.

[Little_star]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

Are you talking about Canada or Australia? I found the information that Mary has two Bachelors, one for law and one for commerce. With her LL.B. degree she could have undertaken a one year articled clerkship or the Legal Practice Course (Commonly Practical Legal Training or PLT) and then apply for registration as a solicitor.

I thought the Australian legal system and legal education system was based on the British? Whereby you do a law degree, then the LPC and then a 2 years Articles (now known as the training contract) which is on the job training.

Moreover so far as joint degrees are concerned, problems can arise. For example if you do a law degree in the UK you must study 7 key subjects to then go on and undergo further legal training. However, alot of combined degrees don't fulfil this requirement. When I first applied to do law I considered a joint honours degree but didn't pursue it for that very reason because at that time I intended on practicing.

[ricarda]

Originally Posted by carlota

i really think a good speech can and does make a difference. and i strive to support those royals whose activities make a difference. it's as simple as that and my only rule to judge whether royals are making a good job.

carlota, I am using your post only to ask some questions:

How do we actually know whether their activities make a difference or not?

Because they themselves claim they make a difference in their speeches?
Is this simply a question of good PR?

Has anyone actually done a profound research about the differences that have been made?

[Zonk]

Not being a lawyer myself (although I was accepted to one school) I am not sure if it matters on whether or not Mary practiced law or was "merely a law school granduate." Let's face it....the fact the she graduated from law school is an accomplishment in my opinion. And if she decided not to actually practice law, does it matter? When speaking to a lot of my friends who are lawyers...a majority of them don't like law or don't practice it today and advised me to look elsewhere. Just a thought.

[MargreteI]

Originally Posted by ricarda

Why could she not have aniticipated this?
IMO she started to build up her image as a humanitarian around the time when her marriage was in trouble.
And the parliament would not have granted her an apanage of her own if she hadn't have that image.

No of course they would not have grated her apanage without the work, but you can not turn it around and say she did the work to get the apanage, because there is no way she could have anticipated the parliament would go ahead an grant her apanage.

[Paula**]

For me, she was always ok.
Its more than proved that commoners can make excelent Princesses.

[tabbitha]

Originally Posted by Australian

I think Tabbitha knows nobody said she was a joker, it is simply what tabbitha feels after reading this thread most probably, no where did tabbitha said someone said Mary was a joker.It is her observation. And in my opinion, quite accurate.

Well i don't think she looks bored at all, i think she looks attentive. I don't get the impression she is bored or disinterested at all, but again, its a matter of opinion

HI Australian,
You are right- i didn't say anyone said she WAS a joker-that was How I interpreted from what some posters have said ;that she must be jovial and grinning & she needs to act a certain way ;that she's fake or looks cold- which i can not see- each to their own...And it's not just in this thread but others . I was just talking general. so there you go..

[Polly]

Originally Posted by Little_star

I thought the Australian legal system and legal education system was based on the British? Whereby you do a law degree, then the LPC and then a 2 years Articles (now known as the training contract) which is on the job training.

Moreover so far as joint degrees are concerned, problems can arise. For example if you do a law degree in the UK you must study 7 key subjects to then go on and undergo further legal training. However, alot of combined degrees don't fulfil this requirement. When I first applied to do law I considered a joint honours degree but didn't pursue it for that very reason because at that time I intended on practicing.

I, too, have an LLB, amongst others, from an Australian university. What you believe is compatible between the Uk and Australia just ain't necessarily so.

For instance, my brother had a postgraduate Arts degree from Australia and only needed a minimal amount of time to become a barrister in the UK. He needed no specific academic experience at all to practise in law, but did need experience, which he gained from Chambers.

So: your point about CP Mary is?

Like so many of us, the princess studied Law, which gave her the entre into an enormously wide field of business. That she didn't complete her one-year's legal 'apprenticeship' in a law firm to enable her to be a practising lawyer, is really of little consideration. I wanted to study law, as did everyone in my family, but I never once anticipated being a lawyer. Most of us saw it as a basic tool for future business endeavours, which I daresay, the young Mary Donaldson also did.

Polly

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Polly

I wanted to study law, as did everyone in my family, but I never once anticipated being a lawyer. Most of us saw it as a basic tool for future business endeavours, which I daresay, the young Mary Donaldson also did.

Polly

Polly, I guess the magazines call her a "lawyer" in order to give their readers an easy to grab impression about what kind of academic background (topic and degree) Mary has. For those who are either LL.B's or are practising lawyers there is the knowledge of the differences of careers within this academic field but that doesn't matter for the average reader. And it's not as if the mags claim Mary is something she could never have been based on her law degree. But of course the topic of "law" in itself leads to these discussions - that's after all where it all starts: put the things that happened in legal categories which you define according to their legal content and then make a case out of your arguments... Thus, it's absolutely fitting that the academic career of princess Mary is revised and analysed here....

[lise]

One of my teachers at school used to by a lawyer. She told me that out of her graduating class only 4 people went on to a career as a lawyer, so I don't think it's a big deal that Mary graduated from law but didn't become a lawyer.

[carlota]

Originally Posted by lisamaria

I think that royals go to all these seemingly pointless things because they are invited to; Mary or Maxima or whoever doesn't simply wake up in the morning and decide it would be the thing to do. Companies and towns and associations use them as publicity tools for themselves; here in Finland many electronics and forest industry companies complain that Sweden has unfair advance of the king and Victoria as they travel a lot to promote Swedish companies and thus promote the national economics.

A princess can of course take an issue and work for it, but we must not forget that royals are expected to a) stay neutral in all issues even remotely political, and b) not to do harm to the diplomatic relationships of their own country. Finding a cause that no one else has taken up yet, and that doesn't violate against those two rules is not that easy. Mary just might be also trying to avoid populism - we shouldn't compare so I won't name names, but seeing a princess wearing tribal headpiece in some African country just reeks of that. It serves no purpose, but looks good. I my eyes she would do thousand times better job by donating money anonymously than by going on a photo session in some exotic location.

Doing all those ship-baptism things has a thing going for them: no one in Africa knows about Mary/Maxima/Mathilde more than what they are told. They hold no meaning to there. But when they meet people of their own, they are expected and wished. Shaking hands with their own princess means a lot to many people, even if it only involves from Mary's side smiling and waving

i am totally aware of the fact that the schedules are programmed much ahead the engagement and that they are not casual. in that case, i think the royal house should be a bit more selective for the engagements they choose for mary.

may i ask why wearing a traditional headpiece breaks those rules? on the contrary, it's a really diplomatic behaviour.

if your comment was directed to mette marit in malawi, i must say i didn't in a long time see people who were so delighted by a royal visit. i interpreted it as a sign of warmth and humbleness by mette marit. coming back to your third paragraph, this demonstrates how although in their own country they are wished and expected, the new country offers a much more challenging and ambitious perspective: an opportunity for the royal, for the royal family and for the country she represents to be known. it shows how a royal enters a circle that is unknown to him to begin those diplomatic relations you mentioned before, which is usually harder than just maintaining those that already exist.

carlota, I am using your post only to ask some questions:

How do we actually know whether their activities make a difference or not?

Because they themselves claim they make a difference in their speeches?
Is this simply a question of good PR?

Has anyone actually done a profound research about the differences that have been made?

ricarda, that's certainly a difficult question to answer and i'm sorry i have not done much research into which royal speeches 'made a difference'. i can however speak as a person who takes part of a large model united nations society, that travels all around the world (this year we are going to oxford, montreal and geneva) to debate different topics, where i have seen the most unexpected reactions towards a speech or a debate. it's indeed a difficult place to be, that's why i personally admire those royals that actively take part in different typr of world conferences, usually reserved for diplomats of politicians, due to the understanding they have on world history and international relations.

i can however mention an example that is maxima and one of her last speeches, which was full of interesting content, not just congratulating, exposing or thanking, but going ahead suggesting new possible methods of doing something. this was very much commented in the dutch forums, if i'm not mistaken, by many members. it already takes a lot of time and effort to expose the facts, but... it takes even more (significantly more) to suggest new ways of doing things, as this means not only research, but understanding.

[UserDane]

Originally Posted by carlota

thanks everyone for your replies.

i would like to point out something about those 'silly' engagements. perhaps i used a wrong word. if the danish royal house considers that mary should go to baptise a ship or a flower, then i think that's perfect: after all, they are the experts. every single engagement has importance to someone and by that reason all of them are important BUT we will all have to agree that not all of them require the same effort, preparation and research.

i really think a good speech can and does make a difference. and i strive to support those royals whose activities make a difference. it's as simple as that and my only rule to judge whether royals are making a good job. i really couldn't care less about what royals wear or not wear as long as they are doing well. royals are in a privileged position to change the world little by little and there's so much more to be done rather than baptising a flower. again, that's MY opinion and other's opinions that think the flower business is more important than other issues are also welcome and most appreciated.

Originally Posted by carlota

i could talk endlesly about the fashion issue, but i don't think there's much point in it.

Carlota, I understand your viewpoints and would agree with you a long way - if this was the only things there were to Mary's engagements and patronages. But I think that is very far from the truth; some of her most important patronages IMO are for The Danish Association for Mental Health and the Danish Mental Health Fund (I'm not trying to put down her other patronages like the Brain Injury Association, Rare Disorders Denmark or the Heart and the Kidney Associations in this connection). Mental illnesses are not high-profiled in the media landscape and IMO this area of medicine was a very very good choice on Mary's part. The media coverage has definitely increased but of course she cannot bring the photographers with her everywhere when she visits - neither the ill nor their relatives would probably like this.

In a number of years we may see her go abroad and visit mental institutions in other less prosperous countries - but I'm not sure it would be convincing if she had done that right away. She would surely have been critised for not doing 'the job' in her own backyard first before setting out to a highly media covered event abroad.

Of course naming a rose or baptising a ship are not life-altering events; but again, this is part of what royals (have to) do and have always done. In this respect Mary is no different from any of her peers. But just because the photographers can detailed every step of the event doesn't mean that this type of activities are what royals do most of the time.

As to fashion (and this comment is not directed at you specifically Carlota) I do wish that people would realise what a huge industry it is for Denmark. I believe it's on the top 5 of most profitable industries here. Can anyone imagine a royal declining to be a patron and support e.g. Danish agriculture? The Danish furniture trade? No, because Royals support their countries' most important industries; the rise in fashion exports in Denmark have gained momentum over the past 5+ years, and to me it makes perfect sense that the industry tries to gather force and make a collected effort - and of course a royal patronage is the obvious thing to have as well.
It doesn't matter if anyone finds fashion 'shallow' or the like - it's an industry here whether people like it or not.

[carlota]

Originally Posted by UserDane

Carlota, I understand your viewpoints and would agree with you a long way - if this was the only things there were to Mary's engagements and patronages. But I think that is very far from the truth; some of her most important patronages IMO are for The Danish Association for Mental Health and the Danish Mental Health Fund (I'm not trying to put down her other patronages like the Brain Injury Association, Rare Disorders Denmark or the Heart and the Kidney Associations in this connection). Mental illnesses are not high-profiled in the media landscape and IMO this area of medicine was a very very good choice on Mary's part. The media coverage has definitely increased but of course she cannot bring the photographers with her everywhere when she visits - neither the ill nor their relatives would probably like this.

In a number of years we may see her go abroad and visit mental institutions in other less prosperous countries - but I'm not sure it would be convincing if she had done that right away. She would surely have been critised for not doing 'the job' in her own backyard first before setting out to a highly media covered event abroad.

Of course naming a rose or baptising a ship are not life-altering events; but again, this is part of what royals (have to) do and have always done. In this respect Mary is no different from any of her peers. But just because the photographers can detailed every step of the event doesn't mean that this type of activities are what royals do most of the time.

As to fashion (and this comment is not directed at you specifically Carlota) I do wish that people would realise what a huge industry it is for Denmark. I believe it's on the top 5 of most profitable industries here. Can anyone imagine a royal declining to be a patron and support e.g. Danish agriculture? The Danish furniture trade? No, because Royals support their countries' most important industries; the rise in fashion exports in Denmark have gained momentum over the past 5+ years, and to me it makes perfect sense that the industry tries to gather force and make a collected effort - and of course a royal patronage is the obvious thing to have as well.
It doesn't matter if anyone finds fashion 'shallow' or the like - it's an industry here whether people like it or not.

hi, userdane. nice to see you here again

it's not only about the industry mary represents. it's not only as her being patron of the danish fashion. it's about her demonstrating shallowness sometimes. don't misunderstand me: i also think mary dresses beautifully and i would love to have some of her beautiful dresses BUT: is this the image she wants to give? of a shallow, superficial person who thinks about how she dresses all the time? i doubt mary could afford any of the clothes she now wears before her marriage, and this gives me a slight impression of her as a 'new rich' as we call it in my language (not sure of the word in english, but if you don't understand it, just tell me). as much as i like dressing nice and professional, even to go to university, i don't like people seeing me as a person who only thinks of that. we rarely see mary and frederik in this spare time, but when they went out, we normally saw mary shopping (mary while in london, mary once shopping with christian under a big 'poncho'...).

i hope no one finds it offending. i really try hard to see mary as the nice, 'down to earth girl' everyone wants to see, but there's something about her that just doesn't fit in the image she gives.

[Australian]

Originally Posted by carlota

but there's something about her that just doesn't fit in the image she gives.

I think it's the image the media give.

Many think she is a beautiful woman, should she try and make herself less beautiful just to please people?

Of course she wouldn't be able to afford some of those clothes before she was married, now she can- thats what happens when you marry a prince. She wasn't a princess then, now she is, so why not get the perks that go along with it, should she deny herself just to live up to her former self before she was a royal and just a commoner, and wear average clothes? For a princess, i should think not.

[UserDane]

Originally Posted by carlota

...is this the image she wants to give? of a shallow, superficial person who thinks about how she dresses all the time? i doubt mary could afford any of the clothes she now wears before her marriage, and this gives me a slight impression of her as a 'new rich' as we call it in my language (not sure of the word in english, but if you don't understand it, just tell me). as much as i like dressing nice and professional, even to go to university, i don't like people seeing me as a person who only thinks of that. we rarely see mary and frederik in this spare time, but when they went out, we normally saw mary shopping (mary while in london, mary once shopping with christian under a big 'poncho'...).

Hi Carlota
What we see of Mary is mostly on official duty -where she dresses as we expect her to do and this will of course be more than she probably could afford pre-Fred. But QMII also dresses more expensively than most woman her age - as does queen Silvia and queen Sonja. I bet Mette-Marit also dresses more expensively now than she did pre-Haakon.
I have noticed that we see a lot of reuse in Mary's wardrobe now; to me that signifies that her wardrobe has been through a building up phase - which to most of us 'mere mortals' may seem overwhelming but is necessary. But I don't see her as a shallow person because of it.
Sometimes snapshots taken of her and/or Frederik appear in the media. They often appear in jeans etc. - much like the clothes they wore at the pictures released for Christian's first birthday. I definitely see Mary as having a working wardrobe and then being more casual in private. If Mary had been born a princess, this wardrobe would have been the result of a whole life with access to good clothes. As it is, she, Mette-Marit, Maxima etc. have had to build it up more rapidly. Most girls' dream I suppose but also necesary as I see it

[Madame Royale]

Originally Posted by UserDane

As to fashion (and this comment is not directed at you specifically Carlota) I do wish that people would realise what a huge industry it is for Denmark. I believe it's on the top 5 of most profitable industries here. Can anyone imagine a royal declining to be a patron and support e.g. Danish agriculture? The Danish furniture trade? No, because Royals support their countries' most important industries; the rise in fashion exports in Denmark have gained momentum over the past 5+ years, and to me it makes perfect sense that the industry tries to gather force and make a collected effort - and of course a royal patronage is the obvious thing to have as well.

It doesn't matter if anyone finds fashion 'shallow' or the like - it's an industry here whether people like it or not.

As an assistant clothing stylist for one of Australia's prominent fashion labels, I confess that this is an industry I know a thing or two about.

Denmark is set on, and has every capability of becoming a world celebrated fashion destination. There is little doubt within the industry (even here in Australia which is very small compared to the likes of Europe and the States) that Copenhagen is an establishing fashion mertropolis and is quite certain to rival the likes of Paris, London & Milan (believe it or not!) within the next 6 year's, max. Although Danish design has increased significantly within the past decade or so, it is more than fair to state that since Mary's arrival, the interest in Danish fashion through royal awareness has helped showcase Danish labels at their very best and most mature to date. The Crown Princess is the perfect (and I mean perfect) ambassador for what has become a major player for the Danish economy and it will only continue to grow.

Denmark is a design country (I love my scan pan ), so 'her' ability to produce pieces that are of both pure & simplistic quality that is evidently popular within today's market, and with the likes of a modern day Crown Princess, should come as very little surprise I would have thought.

Mary's status as a fashion icon is exagerated by some, but she is playing her part for that faction of industry and rightly so.

[lise]

Originally Posted by carlota

hi, userdane. nice to see you here again

it's not only about the industry mary represents. it's not only as her being patron of the danish fashion. it's about her demonstrating shallowness sometimes. don't misunderstand me: i also think mary dresses beautifully and i would love to have some of her beautiful dresses BUT: is this the image she wants to give? of a shallow, superficial person who thinks about how she dresses all the time? i doubt mary could afford any of the clothes she now wears before her marriage, and this gives me a slight impression of her as a 'new rich' as we call it in my language (not sure of the word in english, but if you don't understand it, just tell me). as much as i like dressing nice and professional, even to go to university, i don't like people seeing me as a person who only thinks of that. we rarely see mary and frederik in this spare time, but when they went out, we normally saw mary shopping (mary while in london, mary once shopping with christian under a big 'poncho'...).

i hope no one finds it offending. i really try hard to see mary as the nice, 'down to earth girl' everyone wants to see, but there's something about her that just doesn't fit in the image she gives.

Carlota I'm with Australian on this, I think it's the image the media has given Mary. I think Mary would never have been able to afford the clothes she wears now pre-Fred. I would also expect someone in Mary's 'job' to wear the clothes she does. I'm sure she'd be criticised if she didn't.

[Australian]

Originally Posted by tabbitha

HI Australian,
You are right- i didn't say anyone said she WAS a joker-that was How I interpreted from what some posters have said ;that she must be jovial and grinning & she needs to act a certain way ;that she's fake or looks cold- which i can not see- each to their own...And it's not just in this thread but others . I was just talking general. so there you go..

I thought as much