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

[Marengo]

Indeed, the 'cosy' pictures are as staged as these ones (minus the elaborate use of airbrush) BUT my point was that they are useful in projecting a certain image of a princely family. These kind of pictures however are not useful at all, but instead show the bankrupcy of royalty. If the royals are nothing more than the Beckham family, why should we have them around at all?

I agree that for many these pictures will be nice to see, but I am just against the principle of these kind of shoots, which seems to me nothing more than dressing up to cover the emptiness.

---
I think it is nice that they actually showed where the taxpayers money went & released many images of the palace, made a documentairy and opened it to the public. Considering it is public money you would expect more royals to do the same, but that is not the case (the only photo shoot we ever saw of Villa Eikenhorst was one made by a construction worker in secret).

[Madame Royale]

All I see here are people dressing up in a costume, pretending to be royal.

Rather difficult to do considering the are royal and have nothing to prove on the matter.

BUT my point was that they are useful in projecting a certain image of a princely family

So I take it you have not seen the photo's throughout the past 5 years of a young family celebrating birthday's and the like which clearly demonstrates the 'certain image of a princely family' you believe should be displayed...

I do believe you're making a mound out of a mole hill, Marengo. This editorial piece was evidently never intended to be judged as a guide for homely modesty, though naturally there will be those who feel compelled to suggest that it should have been.

[Aotearoagal]

Didn't Frederik and Mary mention that they lack furniture for the palace a while ago? Maybe they're dropping a big hint!

[Kataryn]

Originally Posted by Marengo

All I see here are people dressing up in a costume, pretending to be royal.

snip

What is the use of appearing in a [German] fashion magazine with such glossy and heavily airbrushed photos, other than satisfying your own vanity?

Maybe they simply like it? Okay, if they like it, you may call this delight in such a shoot "vain" but for me they are simply having fun and they allow me to have fun on sharing the pics with me via publication.

[Australian]

I don't understand why some people say royals are not celebrities. Of course they are. The definition of celebrity is "a widely known person".
I think royals would fit in that category.

Royals use their position and celebrity to support causes and charities. There's no point putting your name to something if you are not known!

[Madame Royale]

Originally Posted by Aotearoagal

Didn't Frederik and Mary mention that they lack furniture for the palace a while ago? Maybe they're dropping a big hint!

That they'll furnish as they go. I think quite naturally they will have what we would consider a good deal of furniture, but it is afterall a palatial residence so I don't doubt that they will be lacking inititally.

[lillepingo]

It's for FUN!

Let's not forget that OTHER royals have done this before ... I don't remember the date but I think it was in Vanity Fair when a number of royals posed for the camera: Prince William, Crown Princess Victoria, Crown Prince WA, Crown Princess Maxima, Crown Prince Felipe, Crown Prince Frederik etc. all did it with gowns, jewels, uniform etc posed beyond anything so why can't the CP family do the same thing for this magazine?

[Her_Majesty]

I still cannot really decide what to think about the photoshoot.
First of all I have to admit that I am a huge fan of Vogue photoshoots. Personally I find most of them very artistic. The settings are usually great.
The same goes for this photoshoot. I like the idea of the family between the boxes. Looks fun. Fashionable. Very Vogue-style. All of the pictures are very well done.
So, I think the pictures themselves are great.
I just don't know if I really like when Royals are posing for photoshoots like that. But I have to disagree that they look like celebrities in that pictures.
Hachhh... I just don't know why I cannot really take to the pictures. I cannot even describe it.

[Marengo]

At least the Vanity Fair shoot had a point (albeit a weak one), an issue about introducing European royalty, with all important young European royals in it. Still, many pictures were frightfully pompous and again, in many cases it seemed as if they were just dressing up to be in a theatrical performance too.

What was the point of this shoot? The only awnser I read in this thread was that they did it for fun or because they liked it. Considering that being royal is their 'job' I do hope they will give their activities some more thought and I stick to my point that glossy pictures like these, be it by Mary, Máxima, Charlene, Diana or any other royal do not do a monarchy any favours at all. It only helps to show the irrelevance of it, as they portray the royals as nothing more than an expensive version of the Beckhams.

Originally Posted by Madame Royale

So I take it you have not seen the photo's throughout the past 5 years of a young family celebrating birthday's and the like which clearly demonstrates the 'certain image of a princely family' you believe should be displayed...

I do believe you're making a mound out of a mole hill, Marengo. This editorial piece was evidently never intended to be judged as a guide for homely modesty, though naturally there will be those who feel compelled to suggest that it should have been.

I did see those photoshoots indeed, I did not mind them so I didn't critisize them. However, my opinion about Vogue-like photo shoots has always been the same too, I voiced that in 2004 on this forum, and I am voicing it now. I don't mind the royals not being modest all the time, provided it is in an official setting or it has a point. I usually like the Danish official photographs of Queen Margrethe, which are by no means modest for example. Not that a republic will appear over night because the royals portray themselves as the Hollywood couple of course, but I do feel that in the long run the decline of royalty to nothing more than the next celebrity family harms the fundaments of the institution.

Anyway, I am starting to sound like a record on repeat .

[AnaC]

Originally Posted by Marengo

At least the Vanity Fair shoot had a point (albeit a weak one), an issue about introducing European royalty, with all important young European royals in it. Still, many pictures were frightfully pompous and again, in many cases it seemed as if they were just dressing up to be in a theatrical performance too.

What was the point of this shoot? The only awnser I read in this thread was that they did it for fun or because they liked it. Considering that being royal is their 'job' I do hope they will give their activities some more thought and I stick to my point that glossy pictures like these, be it by Mary, Máxima, Charlene, Diana or any other royal do not do a monarchy any favours at all. It only helps to show the irrelevance of it, as they portray the royals as nothing more than an expensive version of the Beckhams.

Well said Marengo, I agree with all you have said in this threat.

Furthermore, the fact that they run out of money to decorate the renovated palace(extra money that will come from the Danish tax-payers) should have made them less "flashy" . This pictures represent the opposite of royals concerned about over-spending.

I don't remember the Vanity Fair spread, does anyone have a link?

[Muhler]

Originally Posted by Marengo

These kind of pictures however are not useful at all, but instead show the bankrupcy of royalty. If the royals are nothing more than the Beckham family, why should we have them around at all?

Why on earth should this depict a bankrupcy of royalty?!?

For heavens sake it's just a photoshoot. Nothing more, nothing less.
I personally think the photographer should be slapped in the back of the neck for ruining what would otherwise have been a great shoot, with the odd setting.

Royals have posed for photos since the invention of photography and sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.

Can we all get back to earth please, instead of being on the verge of going at each others throats, just because someone else like or don't like this photo series.

[princess carmen]

I think that these pictures might draw people to monarchy especially younger ones. They are seeing royals not being stand offish and better than them but like them. Having a baby and moving house at the same time something we all have done maybe at one time. I was not drawn to royals by a Queen Elizabeth I had no clue who she was at all. I saw a picture of Caroline of Monaco with Junot in a Night club and was interested we all know the drama with that. I like the pictures it just shows another side of the family and they do look happy which is nice to see.

[lillepingo]

{edit}

ANYWAYS ... I like the photoshoot - is Mary wearing the ruby earrings or the blue ones in the family pic?

[Yekaterina]

Originally Posted by Madame Royale

Rather difficult to do considering the are royal and have nothing to prove on the matter.

is not true. mary donaldson is not royal or noble or aristocratic. just royal by marriage and it shows.

[marfre]

It never ceases to amaze me how some know exactly what someone elses thinks, whether it be Mary, the Pope or QEII.

In my oberservation a few years ago it appeared that interest in a lot of the Royal families were sliding, it is only because the younger royals are dong things differently that there seems to a slight renewed interest .
Thank goodness that royalty is not as stuffy as it once was.

[Madame Royale]

Originally Posted by Yekaterina

is not true. mary donaldson is not royal or noble or aristocratic. just royal by marriage and it shows.

The way you even refer to her clearly expresses your complete disgust, so your opinion is not one I'd ever be likely to take seriously let alone read over in general had you not replied to my post.

And whether by marriage or not, she is royal and has most certainly proved her worth.

[Australian]

I seem to recall her title is Her ROYAL Highness.....I would say she is royal. Weather it be by marriage or not.

[Terri Terri]

Originally Posted by Madame Royale

The way you even refer to her clearly expresses your complete disgust, so your opinion is not one I'd ever be likely to take seriously let alone read over in general had you not replied to my post.

And whether by marriage or not, she is royal and has most certainly proved her worth.

Well said Madame Royale! It is amazing to me that there are royal watchers and commenters who are far more snobbish than the royals themselves!

[Water]

Originally Posted by UserDane

Of course you have a right to express your feelings (and your feelings about Mary and Frederik are well-known ).

"

"well-known", hahaha~~

Funny! Your comment seems like just bass on your feeling to me, you can either agree or disagree my post but please don't use "well-known" to describe my feeling and views, everyone's comment is expressing one's feeling only but not the others, that's so unfair to the others. It's too much non make sense!!!

And, even I am not the fans of them doesn't mean that i hate them, I follow their act as other royals but I found that other royals do not show their privite lives like the Danish Crown family, to be honest, I don't think that's a good development of monarch. Christian and Isabella and also the twins would suffer harshly from the media in the future as you know our lives will become mych and much high-technology!

[Muhler]

{edit}

Is it possible to return to discuss the actual photos?
The setting, the lighting, dress, posing, theme and so on, and state an opinion based on that?

Rather than reverting to whether we like or dislike M&F.