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

[CrownPrincessJava]

I have to say, I absolutely loved the photoshoot! The photographer was rather clever in their approach...old meets new, traditions meet modernisation. It's amazing how people in this thread did not get the gist of the shoot. It also showed their playful side, especially with Frederick and his falcon, and Christian and Isabella painting. What would have been even more artistic is if Mary showed she was barefoot under those gowns, i.e. pregnant and barefoot! The photo of Isabella touching Mary's stomach is not only beautiful, but was so natural!

People need to realise that, just like the British Royal Family, royalty is not what it was 50-100 years ago. They are a symbol; where the population have a say on the runnings of a country hence why we elect a government. When Frederick and Mary are King and Queen, they are merely symbols of a long history. They hold no power.

As for people who state that this is a waste of taxpayers money, pray tell me how? This is a photoshoot that is paid by Vogue, not the Danish population. In addition, the royal family receive a stipend from the government, in which the government may review at any time and either cut or increase their allowance without any justification.

Instead of criticising this family and the Crown Princely couple, people should be embracing their ability to actually connect with their people.

[UserDane]

Originally Posted by Zonk

What is the reaction in Denmark if any?

If any is the keyword There is none - I haven't seen these pictures anywhere else than here (don't know if other Danes have). Not even BilledBladet has shown them - they probably will in a couple of days. The media here are mostly interested in Nicklas Bendtner's newborn son and the Danish women's handball team.
I think it was Amelia who said that it seems as if it is mostly people outside Denmark who have very definite opinions about Mary and Frederik - and she is right!

Can anyone here remember pictures taken by Cecil Baton (Baeton?) of e.g. Marina of Kent and some of the other contemporary British duchesses? They were beautiful, extravagant!, didn't serve any other purpose than showing beautiful women wearing beautiful clothes and ditto jewellery. I still enjoy seeing these pictures now - how fortunate that there wasn't a whole brigade online then when the pictures were taken - analysing, questioning or making doomsday predictions about the downwards slide of royals - or we would never had the pleasure of these pictures today

[Zonk]

Very true.

Tons of these pictures are in the books I mentioned...Royalty in Vogue and The Royal Potraits by Cecil Beaton.

I am pretty sure the author took the photos and someone wrote an accompanying story. Of what, I don't know. Royalty was even more of mystery then.

So has anyone read the actual article? I have seen snippets of what it contains but no one to say they have read it and learned something new.

[JessRulz]

I think that people are having trouble getting ahold of the magazine, especially if they live outside of Germany. I'm going to head over to Borders a little later to see if they have it, but I have a sneaking suspicion they will be an issue or two behind.

[dee4855]

Thank you Zonk for the book titles. I just purchased The Royal Portraits for $.01 (penny) at Amazon. I cannot wait to get it!

[Zonk]

And its the German Vogue....interesting. I am always amazed (but I guess I shouldn't be) that the German magazines have a fascination for the Norwegian, Danish and Dutch royals when they have their own...yes, I know...wrong thread

Doesn't Vogue have an habit (if the interest is there) of sharing articles between the many Vogues. Like if an article appears in British Vogue and there is an audience for it in the US Vogue, the article might show up later?

[Emmily]

Originally Posted by Naggi

Because their boss is the taxpayer. And if they would be my royals I would at least want to know what they do with their time where they are supposed to work.

Do they need to account for every second, every hour of their day to the taxpayer?

Originally Posted by Naggi

And I would support your point in all aspect! As far as I read the Norwegian CP couple pay privately for the trip, but I don't know for sure. As much as I like what they are doing, I can absoultely understand your point as a fair one and except the criticism. I personally would travel the world and hopefully try to understand more of the world instead of posing for magazines :-)

The CP couple of Norway posed for Vogue several years ago as well

[Zonk]

Originally Posted by dee4855

Thank you Zonk for the book titles. I just purchased The Royal Portraits for $.01 (penny) at Amazon. I cannot wait to get it!

You are welcome! You will love it!

Some of the earlier Kent pictures are also in the Royalty in Vogue book.

Its a shame that one doesn't find books like that on the Danish and Swedish Royals. A couple of months ago, I purchased Royal Weddings by Julie Melchior and Friederke Headecke, and its in German (??) and English.
I would love to get some pics of Margaret of Connaught (Fred's great grandmother) and her peers.

Are there any books like that about Mary? Its probably too soon.

[dee4855]

I did not see any. They had the two you listed. I am thrilled to get the portraits one and will buy the other one soon. I would love one on the DRF. For $4 with shipping and handling I did not think I could go wrong since this one was listed as very good condition.

Thanks again!

[Charlotte1]

Originally Posted by Emmily

The CP couple of Norway posed for Vogue several years ago as well

No they didn't, the Norwegian CP couple along with other young royals (Willem-Alexander and Maxima, Pavlos and Marie-Chantal) posed for Testino for an issue of Vanity Fair called "Young Hip and Royal". The British princes didn't pose but William's official 18th birthday photos were used, he was on the cover.

Mette-Marit has appeared in the Norwegian Elle, but she used her own clothes, she refused the designer labels.

Pavlos and Marie-Chantal have been the most media friendly and have done many glossy magazine shoots. Including Pavlos doing one for Italian Vogue Uomo.

Diana posed for Vogue at least twice, Cecil Beaton did take photos of Marina of Kent and she appeared in Vogue. Recently her great-grandchildren appeared in a fashion shoot for Tatler, with the Marina pictures appearing as well.

The pictures are nice, whether or not royals should be posing as celebrities and fashion models is a different debate. Are they royal or are they celebrities?

[Madame Royale]

for an issue of Vanity Fair called "Young Hip and Royal".

If I may extract, and make a point here in general

In my view, at least the VOGUE article serves a purpose in that it reviews the use of contemporary art, painted by contemporary artists, endorsed by a contemporary couple and shown in an contemporary setting (ie; the renovation).

Some have suggested the article is an attempt to self promote, yet articles about being "young, hip and royal" are not considered to be a self promoting look into a lifestyle lived by the minority? Now I have no issue with that, it didn't phase me whatsoever, but to co-operate with an article piece that's only function is to celebrate their social position, relative youth and lifestyle at large is nothing short of self promoting.

The pictures are nice, whether or not royals should be posing as celebrities and fashion models is a different debate. Are they royal or are they celebrities?

I understand your sentiment. I myself don't think of the royals as celebrities and never have and appearing in editorial pieces such as these doesn't sway that opinion.

I for one was delighted to learn that Mary had turned down Oprah's invitation to appear on her talk show during the IOC gathering in Copenhagen of last year. I do believe that Mary would understand who she is and what she is not. And celebrities is not something I think the Danish Royal Family consider themselves to be. They know who they are and they would surely understand the interest shown in them, their lives, their homes etc and so forth. A rather light hearted photoshoot with a few snaps is hardly a sell out.

Marie Chantal is in my opinion, a good exmaple of a socialite with a title. A business woman, certainly, but just as much an enthusiastic self promoter all the same. The photo's of her, some time ago it should be noted, on the red carpet with 'Lagerfeld' molesting her waist were not at all charming. Though she married into a deposed royal family so I imagine some believe it's considered 'acceptable'...

[TLLK]

Originally Posted by Duke of Marmalade

Its one of the worst posing I've ever seen, especially because the children are included in these unnatural and staged so called "art" pictures. Its very "Vogue" etc, celebrity style, something that obiviously attracts Frederik and Mary but this time its horrible to see Isabella and Christian styled like little princess / aristocrat posing with their parents almost like accessories.

To me there is no family unit that is moving into a new house but individual empty posing, showing off who they are and what they have. Very soulless and tacky pictures that I would expect from the usual suspects, various american moviestars who dont mind instrumentalising their children but not from a CP couple.

I have to agree. After viewing some of these photos I wish they had opted for a more casual setting and a less "celebrity" style.

[Aotearoagal]

Originally Posted by 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.

The best royal photos are the ones with warmth and engagement - either between the people in the photo, or the subjects of the photo and the viewer. These photos are of a certain "late Annie Leibovitz" style - rather gothic and stilted. I think they do Fred, Mary and their family a disservice, making them look stiff and unnatural. Royals get plenty of opportunity to be seen being stiff and formal at events - at home, let's see them actually communicated. From these photos you would think little Isabella was the only normal member of the family! Which we know not to be the case - they are a close and happy family, soon to be a brood!

Originally Posted by Zonk

In that respect I would agree Madame Royale.

To be fair, I think that when people refer to "Mary Donaldson" they are referring to the very natural and lovely girl she was - and still is but now beneath a layer of DUTY. I do agree that these formal portraits are "Crown Princess" but that "Mary Donaldson" is still very much in there! (Somewhere!) One's maiden name is always there in fact - you can revert to your maiden name of course, if you divorce or even if you are widowed. Viva Mary Donaldson say I! I for one don't object in the least to being reminded of Mary's Tasmanian/Scotch origins ...

[Emmily]

Originally Posted by Charlotte1

No they didn't, the Norwegian CP couple along with other young royals (Willem-Alexander and Maxima, Pavlos and Marie-Chantal) posed for Testino for an issue of Vanity Fair called "Young Hip and Royal". The British princes didn't pose but William's official 18th birthday photos were used, he was on the cover.

You're correct, my mistake.

[Madame Royale]

Originally Posted by Aotearoagal

To be fair, I think that when people refer to "Mary Donaldson" they are referring to the very natural and lovely girl she was - and still is but now beneath a layer of DUTY. I do agree that these formal portraits are "Crown Princess" but that "Mary Donaldson" is still very much in there! (Somewhere!) One's maiden name is always there in fact - you can revert to your maiden name of course, if you divorce or even if you are widowed. Viva Mary Donaldson say I! I for one don't object in the least to being reminded of Mary's Tasmanian/Scotch origins ...

Most people who have ever referred to her as Mary Donaldson on these forums have either been banned, due to gross misconduct as a poster, or have toned it down because their remarks were anything but cordial. Theres been a tendancy to seem polite when they first start posting, however, the insults start flying and the vitriol that gets laden on the women is nothing short of ghastly thereafter. It happened as recently as a few months back and sure as anything the person who insisted they thought her 'pretty' and lovely, then had a "swift" change of heart and likened her to a social climbing sex worker. So they attempt, however poorly, to take others for a fool but their intentions are pretty damn obvious if you ask me...

Furthermore, not that I am a member, but I know that they refer to her as Mary Donaldson (and that's when they are amiable) on message boards that have been formed to speak ill of her and others.

So I definitly disagree that the majority of people refer to her as Mary Donaldson because they think her a 'lovely' and 'natural' girl. Far from it.

Though that you should think of her in that way, and with your reasoning, is quite lovely :)

[Charlotte1]

Originally Posted by Madame Royale

Some have suggested the article is an attempt to self promote, yet articles about being "young, hip and royal" are not considered to be a self promoting look into a lifestyle lived by the minority? Now I have no issue with that, it didn't phase me whatsoever, but to co-operate with an article piece that's only function is to celebrate their social position, relative youth and lifestyle at large is nothing short of self promoting.

While the magazine (appealing to youth market) labelled the story 'young hip and royal' the royals themselves were promoting their representative roles. They are representatives for their countries and the photos were them presenting royalty not as something that young people's grandmothers were interesting in. But rather they were relevant to young people today as well. It's wasn't the minority lifestyle as such but rather 'we have this job, we're young like you are, this is how we're trying to be relevant'. (William still being at school didn't count! His pictures weren't posed especially for Vanity Fair, but just used by them)

I understand your sentiment. I myself don't think of the royals as celebrities and never have and appearing in editorial pieces such as these doesn't sway that opinion.

Now if your opinion is that appearing in Vogue doesn't mean royals are presented as celebrities, then that's well and good, it doesn't necessarily mean others agree with that view. Diana was a royal whose status very much went into the field of celebrity, posing for glossy fashion shoots, (Vogue, Testino) all pushed her into the celebrity arena.

I for one was delighted to learn that Mary had turned down Oprah's invitation to appear on her talk show during the IOC gathering in Copenhagen of last year. I do believe that Mary would understand who she is and what she is not. And celebrities is not something I think the Danish Royal Family consider themselves to be. They know who they are and they would surely understand the interest shown in them, their lives, their homes etc and so forth. A rather light hearted photoshoot with a few snaps is hardly a sell out.

But a point to be made here about Oprah in Europe she is not quite the A-class celebrity/TV personality that she is in the US and after the hype of the past week, in Australia. (She is something of a nonentity) Turning down Oprah was not a big deal, Mary had nothing to promote (unlike Rania who uses Oprah to appeal to middle American women and to show that not all Muslims are terrorist. Rania is very media savvy) So while Americans and perhaps Australians gasp 'wow she turned down Oprah!' Europeans are more 'Eh, it's just a TV show, no big deal'

Marie Chantal is in my opinion, a good exmaple of a socialite with a title. A business woman, certainly, but just as much an enthusiastic self promoter all the same. The photo's of her, some time ago it should be noted, on the red carpet with 'Lagerfeld' molesting her waist were not at all charming. Though she married into a deposed royal family so I imagine some believe it's considered 'acceptable'...

Marie-Chantal at the beginning of her marriage was a socialite, she has gone well beyond that now. She's far more than 'a woman who lunches' she's quite a good business woman and part of that is marketing. She uses the magazines who are interested in her to market her children's clothing line. There are far less 'first night' type photos of her and Pavlos, they have become quite rare in the last 2 years.

So a comparison can be made, a non-reigning royal family do glossy fashion magazine shoots. Pavlos & MC have done ones with decorating magazines when they moved into their new London home. Celebrities? I would venture yes. Mary and Frederik do the same, celebrities or royals?

[wiwaxia]

Originally Posted by UserDane

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

Why would that be UserDane? It is after all the very essence of their existence, and 345 million kroner per annum is certainly worth discussing, without the infusion of tax payers money they would be passé.

[UserDane]

Originally Posted by wiwaxia

Why would that be UserDane? It is after all the very essence of their existence, and 345 million kroner per annum is certainly worth discussing, without the infusion of tax payers money they would be passé.

Because once the individual royal houses have received their grants from the state (tax payers) I don't see how we, the taxpayers, can claim that we are entitled to know how, when and where and for what purposes they spend their money. As long as the royals fulfil their part of the bargain - for Queen Margrethe that is for example to use most of her grant to maintain the castles she has a right of occupation to - this is it! If one royal house decide to use some of their funds for travelling, another on using a day or two on a photo shoot (probably no money involved), a third on something quite different - this is just not our business and we should keep our noses out of their private money matters.

Claiming that a day of a photo shoot must upset the tax payers is downright silly IMO. People really need to get this tax payer thing into perspective. How the tax payer even got into this discussion about a photo shoot still beats me

I have noticed that is often people who do not live in monarchies who are extremely focused on 'the hard-suffering tax payers' in monarchies. I don't for one moment believe that a presidency would be cheaper for the tax payers. It's OK to have the origin of the money of individual royal houses in mind, but some really need to get some perspective into it. It's not like the royals are the tax payers' financial hostages.

[nwinther]

Originally Posted by Naggi

My first thought on this comment of yours was, if she is able to do hour long shoots, to dress up several times with different hair syle and make-up and do one shot over and over again for don't know how many hours, than she may be able to partake her royal duties still. But this would be very mean towards a pregnant woman, so I respect that we should not regard this shooting time as working time.

I was just trying to find an answer to the question whether there should be a purpose given to justify this shooting.

At the time of the shooting, she was still not on maternity leave, making your entire post moot.

But even if it wasn't - don't you see a difference between having your picture taken (or modelling) in your own home, under private circumstances, minutes away from the hospital, and then attending a conference, in public, hours away from the hospital? In this scenario, if Mary feels ill or uncomfortable, she can call a break. With modern technology, it's possible to get a good shot of her in a matter of minutes and send her to rest, finishing the shoot with the rest of the family and compose the final images on a computer (they do that anyway). Hence, this shoot may not have been such a terrible ordeal (btw. stop watching so many "...Next top Model"-shows).
If she is in a public engagement, and she leaves or fail to participate in some part of the visit the press and public will be all over her, exaggerating everything. The public appearances alone will put more stress on her than any photo-shoot ever will.

This way she manages to perform a duty while not being fully available - and I for one think that's admirable.

[Muhler]

Originally Posted by wiwaxia

Why would that be UserDane? It is after all the very essence of their existence, and 345 million kroner per annum is certainly worth discussing, without the infusion of tax payers money they would be passé.

I share that sentiment with UserDane, wholeheartedly as well.

The taxpayer argument, usually have my eyes rolling as well.
It's in my opinion an excuse to complain about expenses for things someone does not want to spend money on.

And according to the just published report from the government about the total expenses of the DRF, I pay about 63 DKK a year to the DRF.
That's a little more than 5 DKK a month, or 1 $ US a month.

So it's hardly an economic issue for me.