Nannies of the Crown Prince Couple’s Children

[bbb]

"i'm not trying to change anyones minds, SUGAH" i mean that in the nicest possible way, here in the south we call everyone sugar, so if it was meant as a put down to me (as my quote was used) i have to say you missed the mark, i'm not taking the bait- i don't care what or why you think of mary and am not wasting my time trying to change anyone's mind. i happen to enjoy and respect ALL the CP couple and try to stay above the fray of the "mine is better nonsense"


imo she never said she wouldn't use nannies, imo she said the children won't be raised by nannies. imo there is a big difference, imo they are loving, affectionate parents, it's my opinion and on this board i'm entitled to mine as you are to yours.

you will never find me being disrespectful to any of the royals (ironic, not always positive, questioning maybe) or members intentionally, most of the time i try to take into consideration language and culture differences and i try not to get provoked toward anyone i don't know personally.
you don't like mary i get it, move on it doesn't effect my life in the least, if you meant your post as an attack, nice try- if you were trying to prove a point, i'm sorry it flew right over my head.

the question was asked, i gave my opinion, i'm not sure why you've brought in letizia, if you read my posts you'll find i'm a "fan" of hers too. i'm not sure what the point of your post is- it didn't answer or add to aurora post so i'm ignoring it as off topic and moving on.

[MissSaga]

How can they not have nannies? They are Crown Prince and Princess of Denmark. Actually, the're simply working parents. Nannies is a must for them - and there not doing anything wrong, they are, as we know, actually upper class.

She just said the kids would not be raised by nannies. She never said that they wouldn't hire any.

[laramie]

I wonder how many children are in day care full time while mothers and dads work - do we point our fingers at them? The Crown Prince couple are fortunate that they can have care for their children at home rather than in day care. But in the question of child care they really are no different than any of the millions(I doubt that I am exaggerating) of couples that share this problem. In the US I believe that what we call a full time baby sitter is often what in other parts of the world is called a nanny. My own children,who are professionals, have all had their children in day care for at least 8 hours a day until they were school age and no one ever accused them of not "raising" their children. This is just a fact of life in this modern world.

[biboquinhas]

I think that they don't abuse of nannys. We can see them very often playing with Christian on the Park or on the beach, we can see clearly that they are present parents so to have nannys is a normal and useful thing for them! They need to have nannys because they don't have a 9:00 to 17:00 work like many other parents!! I don't think that is bad thing having in mind that they don't abuse of that facility

[acdc1]

I think it's ok that they use a nanny, since they are so busy. And it's not as if the nannies are basically raising the children, Fred and Mary are doing that, you can plainly tell. I actually think that they probably wanted to take Christian to NYC, but it would be easier for them and for him to just stay at home with a nanny and his grandparents.

[Aurora810]

Just as Lena said it was not a smart comment on Mary's part to make! And it left plenty of room for interpretation for sensational reporter types. I still feel a bit sorry for Mary in this regard as it seems this comment has haunted her for awhile now. I have to think if Mary could have one comment back since becoming the wife of the Crown Prince of Denmark it would be this one about the issue of nannies. Well, we all make mistakes even though this isn't really a mistake persay it just wasn't a well summed up thought. Also I think she was a somewhat new princess at the time of the comment. Today, she likely would not give a similar open for interpretation comment.

[biboquinhas]

Originally Posted by acdc1

I think it's ok that they use a nanny, since they are so busy. And it's not as if the nannies are basically raising the children, Fred and Mary are doing that, you can plainly tell. I actually think that they probably wanted to take Christian to NYC, but it would be easier for them and for him to just stay at home with a nanny and his grandparents.

And they didn't have any free time so they could't go with to nice places that children like!

[Myriam]

what's the problem with nannies? they are very useful sometimes; mary said her children would never be educated by nannies. she never said they wouldnt have nannies.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Aurora810

That is my own thoughts. So what do others think?

Whatever a "nanny" is.. . There are even "Daddies" who do the "nanny" if mummy's busy with her job or enjoying some rare spare time of her own.

Even my middle class self had someone ( a nanny?) to take care of my son when I went back to working and my mother had become too ill to care for him alone.

I think it's the most normal thing to have help with the kids. For hours, even days. Be it the grandparents (normally only too happy to "help out" when it comes to their beloved grandchildren) or hired help (Au Pairs have the chance to encounter other countries in a secure surrounding because of that need!). In former times (The "Golden Ages" LOL) you didn't need them because any other member of the "enlarged family" you lived in (Grannies, aunties etc.) raised the kid while you were their young working slave...

Even that's something completely different from "having nannies raise a child". That borders on growing up in the Royal orphanage - getting trained to slave in the "Royal Workhouse" as future monarch....

From the pictures we could see I am convinced Mary is just another of those mums who use help when they need it. But who are the mums. IMHO, of course.

[Marengo]

I think the remark has been blown out of proportions because some thought it was a snub to her mother-in-law and a nasty remark about the way the Queen raised her sons.

I don´t think the above was anywhere near what Mary meant, but that is how it was explained by some. As others said, an unfortunate remark which could be interpreted even more unfortunate by those who want to see fault. Resulting from that it is blown out of proportions that she has a nanny herself right now.

[msleiman]

I don't understand how people can not understand the difference between raising children and looking after children! This seems very clear to me, I see a big difference between the two.

[MargreteI]

Originally Posted by Marengo

I think the remark has been blown out of proportions because some thought it was a snub to her mother-in-law and a nasty remark about the way the Queen raised her sons.

I don´t think the above was anywhere near what Mary meant, but that is how it was explained by some. As others said, an unfortunate remark which could be interpreted even more unfortunate by those who want to see fault. Resulting from that it is blown out of proportions that she has a nanny herself right now.

I am quite sure that Mary is referring to how Queen Margrethe raised her son. No doubt about that.

.... BUT the queen herself have admitted that she was not a good mother when the two princes were very small and that things should have been different in their early years.

... so you can not call it a snipe, but rather it is in agrement with the Queen.

The reason why it has never been a big deal how she raised her sons when they were infants and todlers is due to her selfg being open hearted about her shortcommings.

.

[ysbel]

First thing, lets set the record straight: Sarah Le Marquand of the Daily Telegraph did not criticize Mary for hiring nannies.

She said, "This is not to suggest for one second that Mary and Frederik should be admonished for hiring a nanny. Like any modern couple, they're understandably eager to access the best childcare they can afford.

It's just a shame Mary felt the need to make such sweeping statements before she even gave birth. Until you've actually become a parent - and I say this as someone without children - it's best to refrain from judging both those with nannies and those without. It will only come back to haunt you later."

I find some truth to this opinion, it was an unwise statement to make. However, I wonder why LeMarquand feels it necessary to bring up now. As Lena said, people have forgotten about this by now.

But the Danish Royal Watchers is practicing some questionable journalism itself with headlines such as: Breaking news! Tabloid journalist prefers Mary's babies to be home alone!"

For accusing Le Marquand of misquoting Mary, the Danish Royal Watchers then proceeds to misquote Le Marquand and in a worse way because whereas Mary's words were somewhat ambiguous "I know I'm going to have a lot of help but no way is my child going to be raised by nannies" Le Marquand's words were very straightforward and not open to different interpretations. She plainly said that she did not admonish Mary for hiring nannies, yet the Danish Royal Watchers headline clearly states the opposite.

Perhaps before chastising the Daily Telegraph for shoddy journalism, perhaps the Danish Royal Watchers should look to its own journalistic standards.

[Aurora810]

Yeah, I as well thought the breaking news headline was a little much when I was reading it. But who are the Danish Royal watchers, anyway? I mean, can they even be called journalists? I'm just asking, I don't know. Who exactly runs the site? I see the two names in the corner but I guess I don't think of them necessarily as journalists, but possibly playing journalists from time to time.

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by Aurora810

Yeah, I as well thought the breaking news headline was a little much when I was reading it. But who are the Danish Royal watchers, anyway? I mean, can they even be called journalists?

You have a very good point aurora. The Danish Royal Watchers seems to be a blog which means that its not published by a regular media service. But blogs get quoted more and more as reliable news sources these days which may mean its probably a good idea to check out a blog's standards for integrity and accurate reporting before trusting what they write.

I simply find it ironic that they use a misleading headline about a reporter's statement when the subject of the article is their complaint of how this same reporter is misinterpreting Mary's statement.

Its rather like the pot calling the kettle black.

[Aurora810]

Originally Posted by ysbel

I simply find it ironic that they use a misleading headline about a reporter's statement when the subject of the article is their complaint of how this same reporter is misinterpreting Mary's statement.

Its rather like the pot calling the kettle black.

Completely agreed about the misleading headline. But I must admit it caught my eye!!!

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by Aurora810

Completely agreed about the misleading headline. But I must admit it caught my eye!!!

Yes, the Danish Royal Watchers headline was eye-catching at that. Probably just as eye-catching the original tabloid headlines after Mary's interviews that she was going to set up nanny-free zones for her childrens and go without nannies. If the papers had used the headline 'Mary will use nannies but will still be a 100% mother' it just wouldn't have been as attention-grabbing.

Never trust headlines!

I think it was a mistake for Mary but I don't think people should make too much of it. How many people say, "I will never..." before they get married and then proceed to do exactly what they said they would never do. A lot!

[UserDane]

Does anyone have a link to what Mary really said about using nannies? I have read so many contradicting interpretations of it that it would be nice to see the source (but I cannot find it).
I always thought that the meaning was that nannies would not be responsible for raising her kids - just like the people employed in the 'vuggestuer' and kindergardens my kids have attended were not responsible for raising them - only for caring for them while we as parents were away working.
The nanny issue is beginning to sound a bit like a royal 'urban legend'.

[ysbel]

The original interview apparently was in Danish UserDane so you should be able to find it. Both the Daily Telegraph and the Danish Royal Watchers appear to be quoting the same source which leads me to believe that they are using a reasonably decent translation of the original.

I think Marengo is right and the implied criticism of the way Margrethe raised Fred and Mary may have caused much of the initial reaction to Mary's statement which seemed misguided but not really bad. My own personal belief is that the press was trying to position Mary in the hearts and minds of the people as this simple, down-to-earth, natural girl who was going to bring some down-to-earth simplicity into this ancient royal family and the royal family was not against Mary being positioned that way. Thus, I think that Mary tried to please them all and appear even more simple, more down-to-earth, and more just like you and me than she actually was. So she made statements like "My children will definitely not be raised by nannies" and "I will be a working mother but I will be a mother 100%" which could be misinterpreted. That is not a major sin in my book but just the side effect of being in a new job and wanting to impress and occasionally saying the wrong thing because you're new.

Its possible that the interview was badly translated into English; however, I think that even if Mary originally misspoke, she made a pretty small mistake and people should leave it alone.

[UserDane]

Thanks for your answer Ysbel. I have tried to google for it in Danish but I didn't find it.