Frederik & Mary's Interview with German Vogue about Amalienborg: December 2010

[carlota]

Originally Posted by Madame Royale

And no, you and I both know I'd endeavour to say that the issue here isn't having an opinion. it is the way in which it is expressed.

There was nothing constructively critical in their view whatsoever.

'Mary Donaldson' is not her style and is only ever used by people who wish to portray the Crown Princess in a negative light. A kind of wanting to demean her and the position she now holds, so much so that they refuse to refer to her by her title. Oh no, that's not petty is it...

Quite right that it's subjective, but Mary has proved her worth. Infact the Danes (personal observation) love her to bits so the proofs in the pudding I'm affraid.

I certainly wasn't aggressive but you certainly were, needing to shout part of your post at me

Enjoy your day.

how is demanding a bit of tolerance aggresive? it seems to me that everyone who says everything that is not positive will get shouted at. live and let live.
since when does an opinion need to be constructive? criticism is constructive. expression is differnet. opinions can be of whichever kind and reflect a perception. that's what forums are for. if everyone thought similarly, life would be boring.

[Cinderella5x]

Originally Posted by dee4855

Amazing! How a photo shoot has come to this. I do not think I will ever understand why people really dislike this couple. What they have done to make so many think this way about them. They do try very hard to give back to others yet it seems to make no difference at all. You would think they just sit in their palace and make nothing but demands. When they do come out they do nothing but party. What is OK for one RF is not OK for the DRF.

What I don't understand is why the fact some people don't like the photoshoot, the dress Mary or Isabella is wearing means they don't like this couple? One has nothing to do with the other. I cannot recall (if I missed it, I apologize) seeing anybody saying "I don't like Mary, Fred, the couple, the kids etc... All was said was they don't like the pictures, the idea, the photoshoot itself, the dresses... and so on. But that doesn't mean they dislike this couple.

[dee4855]

Originally Posted by Cinderella5x

What I don't understand is why the fact some people don't like the photoshoot, the dress Mary or Isabella is wearing means they don't like this couple? One has nothing to do with the other. I cannot recall (if I missed it, I apologize) seeing anybody saying "I don't like Mary, Fred, the couple, the kids etc... All was said was they don't like the pictures, the idea, the photoshoot itself, the dresses... and so on. But that doesn't mean they dislike this couple.

Post #40 and the other one has been removed. Please do your own research on this. It is not my job to keep you informed on what the threads say.

[Cinderella5x]

Originally Posted by dee4855

Post #40 and the other one has been removed. Please do your own research on this. It is not my job to keep you informed on what the threads say.

Did not ask for the information, did not expect anyone to inform me. Simply, did not notice "dislike of this couple" in the posts I read. And, if the posts have been removed, cannot read them, sorry.

[Madame Royale]

Originally Posted by carlota

how is demanding a bit of tolerance aggresive? it seems to me that everyone who says everything that is not positive will get shouted at. live and let live.
since when does an opinion need to be constructive? criticism is constructive. expression is differnet. opinions can be of whichever kind and reflect a perception. that's what forums are for. if everyone thought similarly, life would be boring.

I don't demand anything of anyone here. It's not my place to do so.

It's not as though I stopped the person from posting, I merely expressed my opinion in reply to a post which was posted in response to something I had said.

I stated a fact, that I'd not give their post the time of day had they not quoted my post because I found it rude (and I wasn't the only one). Who is to say those who think ill of her need to be agreed with and vice versa? Clearly there are those who don't think postively towards Mary and as with those who do think positively of her, they have just as much right to voice that opinion, and always do. As such, I have as much of a right to disagree with it. As you say, that's what forums are for.

And certainly it was only you who was doing the shouting, not I :)

So again, and I made it pretty clear on my initial reply, that the issue here isn't about having an opinion. It's the way it's presented that's the issue. Plain and simple.

Duke of Marmalade is a good example of someone who although I may not generally agree with on various issues, expresses themselves in a dignified and respectful manner towards those they speak of. They observe and relate their thoughts, yet I do believe they aren't inclined to attack Mary as an indavidual as some here feel oh so obligated to do.

[dee4855]

Originally Posted by Cinderella5x

Did not ask for the information, did not expect anyone to inform me. Simply, did not notice "dislike of this couple" in the posts I read. And, if the posts have been removed, cannot read them, sorry.

You used my quote is why I responded back to you. I have read them all and have kept up. That is why I stated my opinion as I did. There are more I am just not in the mood to have to look them up.

[Cinderella5x]

Originally Posted by dee4855

You used my quote is why I responded back to you. I have read them all and have kept up. That is why I stated my opinion as I did. There are more I am just not in the mood to have to look them up.

I used your quote, because you said about people who dislike this couple and I simply did not notice that fact anywhere. Again, I may have missed it, I admit, I do not read the forum every day.

All I wanted to know was why the fact someone does not like the said photoshoot (because that what this thread, I think, is about) means they do not like this couple. Maybe I am wrong, but to me, one has nothing to do with the other. One may like them as people, and still don't like the photoshoot and the dresses, etc. Or the other way around.

[Tarlita]

Good heavens we don't see much of this coulpe for awhile and then Bang! they do a photo shoot for a fashion magazine and it creates a staggering amount of comment. Guess the magazine should sell well then. Just hope these pics turn up in Australian Vogue. Also hope the article that goes with it is worth reading. Sternchen is Talbot Runhof a German dress designer? I believe his is the gold dress worn. Can't wait for the twins to arrive.

[Sternchen]

Talbot Runhof are two designer Johnny Talbot and Adrian Runhof, Johnny is american and Adrian is german

TALBOT RUNHOF

My guess is, that the german Vogue team made the suggestion that Mary wears Talbot Runhof, they are quiet well known in Germany for their Gala dresses

[Naggi]

Originally Posted by UserDane

I can't quite follow you here; didn't you raise the question of the Danish taxpayer's objection to the Danish Cp couple taking time to do a photo shoot; now you talk about the Norwegian CP couple paying privately. Whoever pays, they spend more time on travelling (not that I mind that they do!) than Mary and Frederik spent on the photo shoot.

But how can one CP couple pay 'privately' for what they are doing while another's CP couple's activity is a potential problem with the taxpayer? They both get their money from the state, eventually, don't they? If Norwegian taxpayers - who supposedly are behind the private funds the CP couple may be using - are not an issue in connection with a, what, two months long trip?, how in the whole wide world can the Danish taxpayers be an issue if the Danish CP couple spend one day on a photo shoot?

As to the taxpayer being the royals' boss: I simply see little red dots before my inner eyes whenever that reference pops up. The Danish CP couple get a fixed allowance from the state. In this way they resemble any employee who gets a salary (albeit on another scale, I agree). How would any employee react if he or she was asked to account to the boss what he or she spent their agreed wages on??? The reference to the taxpayer is and always has been a senseless argument IMO.

Sorry, I don't mean to sound too harsh but that taxpayer thing is one of my pet aversions around these boards

How the reference to the taxpayer thing is a senseless argument goes beyond my understanding. The tax system is one of the most important subjects of any democracy. European monarchies have survived mostly because they commited themselves to democratic values, that includes the tax paying system. It is the ultimate right of the taxpayer to know what happens with his/her money. What royals do in their private life I don't care (and to be honest I don't even want to know for what they spent their money when they are private, because I may get mad about it or not) , but when they purposely pose for magazines than they are no more private and consequently a subject for any taxpayer.

Someone said (forgive me I can't find the post anymore) that she thinks that only those bring up the issue of taxes who do not have a monarch in the country they live. Well, I don't care at all if I have a monarch or not when it comes to issues like democracy, because at the end democracy overrules monarchy anyway. So basically I can question even the actions of European royals though they may not be my royals by country or whatsoever :-)

[dee4855]

Originally Posted by Cinderella5x

I used your quote, because you said about people who dislike this couple and I simply did not notice that fact anywhere. Again, I may have missed it, I admit, I do not read the forum every day.

All I wanted to know was why the fact someone does not like the said photoshoot (because that what this thread, I think, is about) means they do not like this couple. Maybe I am wrong, but to me, one has nothing to do with the other. One may like them as people, and still don't like the photoshoot and the dresses, etc. Or the other way around.

A lot of things not to do with fashion or the photo shoot have been on this thread. I do not make these things up to just post.

[marfre]

Has anyone actually seen the magazine or read the article?

I believe the photoshoot was about the art and the renovations on the palace.
I have read where any number of people are going to buy the magazine so the artists are dan only be thankful it gets them exposure outside of Denmark .
This can only be a postive for these artists, good for them and Denmark.

[Cinderella5x]

Originally Posted by dee4855

A lot of things not to do with fashion or the photo shoot have been on this thread. I do not make these things up to just post.

I realize that, it happens everywhere, all the time. I believe you saw the posts stating people don't like them, I just thought maybe I missed those posts, but then, after having a look at previous pages, I still haven't found anything, so it must have been in the posts you said have been deleted. I simply wanted to make sure people really posted anything saying they dislike this couple. And if they did, it seems weird they did not give a reason.

[Her_Majesty]

Originally Posted by Tarlita

Good heavens we don't see much of this coulpe for awhile and then Bang! they do a photo shoot for a fashion magazine and it creates a staggering amount of comment. Guess the magazine should sell well then.

Actually, the photoshoot didn't really cause any attention. it only caused attention in Royalty forums...
Here in Germany no one really noticed that photoshoot... apart from regular Vogue readers and of course the Royal watchers at internet forums.

[Naggi]

Originally Posted by Her_Majesty

Actually, the photoshoot didn't really cause any attention. it only caused attention in Royalty forums...
Here in Germany no one really noticed that photoshoot... apart from regular Vogue readers and of course the Royal watchers at internet forums.

Which would make the photo shoot even more senseless. What was is good for?

[Her_Majesty]

Originally Posted by Naggi

Which would make the photo shoot even more senseless. What was is good for?

The sense of photoshoots? Is there any?
I mean... seriously..Aren't most just made to look at?

[marfre]

Refer #217
It is the same for all royal photoshoots (except fot the ones of Diana) they make not a ripple anywhere else but on the royal message boards so, if this was senseless so are all the others that have taken place.

[Naggi]

Originally Posted by Her_Majesty

The sense of photoshoots? Is there any?
I mean... seriously..Aren't most just made to look at?

So are you saying that the royal family pics serve to nothing more than to look at? Is this what they are supposed to do?

[Cinderella5x]

While looking for some posts, I glanced thru the entire thread about that photoshoot. I see we came a long way from a simple photoshoot, that some of us liked, some did not, to the money, politics an such. I highly doubt that's what that was all about. I think it was a simple photoshoot, some liked they way it looked, some did not, some liked what Mary was wearing, some did not, some like her pose, some did not, but I don't think there was really something so deep in it. After all, Vouge is a fashion magazine, so we probably, should not take it so seriously.

[Her_Majesty]

Originally Posted by Naggi

So are you saying that the royal family pics serve to nothing more than to look at? Is this what they are supposed to do?

Some photoshootings are made for certain reasons, some not. That's just the way it is.

Originally Posted by Cinderella5x

While looking for some posts, I glanced thru the entire thread about that photoshoot. I see we came a long way from a simple photoshoot, that some of us liked, some did not, to the money, politics an such. I highly doubt that's what that was all about. I think it was a simple photoshoot, some liked they way it looked, some did not, some liked what Mary was wearing, some did not, some like her pose, some did not, but I don't think there was really something so deep in it. After all, Vouge is a fashion magazine, so we probably, should not take it so seriously.

I second that.